Formal Debt-Relief, Rescue and Liquidation Options for External Companies in South Africa

A. Boraine
{"title":"Formal Debt-Relief, Rescue and Liquidation Options for External Companies in South Africa","authors":"A. Boraine","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-4-85-126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses how foreign companies doing business in South Africa during periods of financial distress and registered locally as external companies are, as a recent High Court decision confirms, denied the formal debt-relief measures of business rescue and therefore a compromise with creditors because of being excluded by the definition of “company” in the Companies Act 71 of 2008. Nor, for the same reason, may these companies, if solvent, rely on the current liquidation procedures. But they may possibly use the procedure preserved in the otherwise repealed Companies Act 61 of 1973 for liquidation as far as the transitional arrangements in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 allow. The purposive solution suggested in this article for the interplay between the two Acts may need legislative attention. This article surveys other possibilities relevant to these companies such as informal voluntary arrangements, applications for winding-up, ordinary debt collection, and perhaps compulsory sequestration applications. Finally, it raises the policy issue for the legislature to consider why these companies should be denied business rescue and/or a compromise with their creditors when these formal debtrelief measures might help them survive their financial stress and emerge stronger, to the advantage of themselves, their creditors, their stakeholders and communities, and the entire nation. It is submitted that these issues could and should be considered as part of the current law reform process of South African insolvency law.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-4-85-126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article discusses how foreign companies doing business in South Africa during periods of financial distress and registered locally as external companies are, as a recent High Court decision confirms, denied the formal debt-relief measures of business rescue and therefore a compromise with creditors because of being excluded by the definition of “company” in the Companies Act 71 of 2008. Nor, for the same reason, may these companies, if solvent, rely on the current liquidation procedures. But they may possibly use the procedure preserved in the otherwise repealed Companies Act 61 of 1973 for liquidation as far as the transitional arrangements in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 allow. The purposive solution suggested in this article for the interplay between the two Acts may need legislative attention. This article surveys other possibilities relevant to these companies such as informal voluntary arrangements, applications for winding-up, ordinary debt collection, and perhaps compulsory sequestration applications. Finally, it raises the policy issue for the legislature to consider why these companies should be denied business rescue and/or a compromise with their creditors when these formal debtrelief measures might help them survive their financial stress and emerge stronger, to the advantage of themselves, their creditors, their stakeholders and communities, and the entire nation. It is submitted that these issues could and should be considered as part of the current law reform process of South African insolvency law.
分享
查看原文
南非外部公司的正式债务减免、救助和清算选择
本文讨论了在财政困难时期在南非开展业务并在当地注册为外部公司的外国公司,正如高等法院最近的一项裁决所证实的那样,由于被2008年第71号《公司法》中“公司”的定义排除在外,如何拒绝采取正式的商业救助债务减免措施,从而与债权人达成妥协。出于同样的原因,这些公司如果有偿付能力,也不可能依赖目前的清算程序。但在2008年第71号《公司法》的过渡安排允许的范围内,他们可能会使用1973年被废除的《公司法第61号》中保留的程序进行清算。本条就两项法案之间的相互作用提出的有目的的解决方案可能需要立法关注。本文调查了与这些公司相关的其他可能性,如非正式自愿安排、清盘申请、普通债务催收,以及可能的强制扣押申请。最后,它提出了一个政策问题,让立法机构考虑为什么这些公司应该被拒绝商业救助和/或与债权人达成妥协,而这些正式的偿债措施可能会帮助它们度过财务压力,变得更强大,这对它们自己、债权人、利益相关者和社区以及整个国家都有利。据认为,这些问题可以而且应该被视为南非破产法现行法律改革进程的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信