Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'South Africa. Companies Act 71 of 2008'

This study examined the new Companies Act (71/2008) with a specific focus on Chapter 6, business rescue. This rather controversial legislation was implemented in South African company law on the 1st of May 2011 and redefines how legislation can possibly save financially distressed companies from distress and ultimately liquidation proceedings. The literature review has focused on the purpose of business rescue as set out by the new Companies Act. It has gone into much detail on the set processes, revealed the key stakeholders involved and their respective responsibilities set out by the new Act. The study touched on current international trends in saving distressed businesses. A published financial distress model was discussed and a link made about where best to initiate business rescue actions within this four-stage model. In this study the empirical research adopts content analysis as a research method. An investigation was conducted on all business rescue applications received by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). Additional analysis of a large creditor’s portfolio of business rescue applications showed some initial success rates of this new legislation. The mini-dissertation concludes with limitations and challenges faced during the study, followed by recommendations about how to excel in business rescue practice in years to come.
Thesis (MBA)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Decision-making is the most critical role that company directors have to play in the life of a company that they are appointed to manage. South African law (in s66 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, the Act) has now followed the global trend of recognising that directors have original authority/mandate to manage or direct company affairs or business. A director is accorded (by law) powers to exercise to enable him or her to fulfil the functions of that office. Decision-making, which is not an easy task, is critical to enterprise efficiency and advancement of the national economy. Directors have to make business decisions, at times under imperfect circumstances and while confronting tensions inherent in the corporate form. Not least of these tensions is the pressure to balance the profit maximisation drive from shareholders and accountability for how the directors exercise the powers at their disposal. Despite pressures involved in decision-making, the law requires that directors should exercise their powers in the best interests of the corporation. Thus the Act has attempted to put mechanisms in place to ensure that directors' freedom to manage corporations has to be necessarily constrained and balanced by the need for them to be accountable. The thesis focuses on the duty of care, skill and diligence on one hand (standard of conduct), and the business judgment rule (BJR- standard of review) on the other. These are two mechanisms put in place by the Act to ensure a balance between directors' freedom to manage and accountability. The thesis seeks to answer the key question whether the Act has made standards of care, skill and diligence clearer, more accessible and enforceable than before in light of the Act's adoption of BJR. The thesis analyses the duty of care, skill under s76(3)(c) and BJR under s76(4) in light of the context of law reform (that is the purposes of law reform) and international experiences. In this thesis, an appraisal of the positives brought about by the codification of the duty of care and the adoption of BJR into statute for the first time in SA is given. It is argued that while some purposes of law reform have been achieved, the Act has not achieved the purpose of clarity of standards. For example, the analysis reveals unfortunate omissions and worrying ambiguities in the formulation of standards of care, skill and diligence in s76(3)(c). While giving in-depth analysis of the scope and policy rationale of BJR under the Act, the thesis further notes that the characterisation of BJR in s76(4)(a) as a standard of conduct as opposed to standard of review is problematic. It has also been argued that the BJR is not properly aligned to international standards. Clear amendments to the Act have been suggested to improve clarity of standards and the law in s76(3)(c) and s76(4)(a).

This dissertation critically analyses the business rescue regime, with a specific focus on those attributes of the regime which detrimentally affect creditors. The main aspects which will be critically analysed include, the moratorium, the effect of business rescue on suretyships and the costs of business rescue. Examples will be used to illustrate the ways in which the business rescue regime is disproportionately slanted in favour of debtor companies as opposed to their creditors. Proposals as to how the regime can be developed to balance the competing interests of debtor companies and their creditors will also be made.
Mini Dissertation (LLM (Corporate Law))--University of Pretoria, 2020.
Mercantile Law
LLM (Corporate Law)
Unrestricted

A set method of determination of the fair value of shares is omitted from s164 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the South African Act), which deals with the appraisal remedies of dissenting shareholders. This dissertation will consider how courts in the United Kingdom and the United States have dealt with the question of what is fair value in the context of oppression remedies and appraisal rights

Doctor Legum - LLD
The ideals of shareholder and creditor protection are affected by legislation pertaining to the validity of a company’s transactions. Until legislative reforms introduced in the twentieth century, a company’s capacity and the ultra vires doctrine traditionally limited the company’s ability to contract. Therefore, the legal framework regulating corporate capacity influences a company’s interactions with outsiders. The goal of the law in this regard should be to facilitate commerce while providing adequate protection to all affected stakeholders. South Africa’s Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) contains several novel provisions regarding a company’s capacity, the desirability of which is questionable. Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) are used for various purposes in commerce, from asset holding in the financial services sector to concluding complex financial functions in corporate finance. For instance, traditional securitisation is a financial engineering technique that makes use of corporate SPVs. Traditional securitisation is a valuable risk management, earnings management, and corporate financing tool. Incorporators of securitisation SPVs often include capacity restrictions in the constitutions of such entities as a means of reducing the likelihood that the SPV will be subject to liquidation proceedings.This thesis analyses the capacity provisions in the Act to determine whether they provide a commercially desirable framework to facilitate the activities of SPVs used in traditional securitisation schemes. The thesis argues that the capacity provisions in the Act in their current form are undesirable because they place third parties at too great a risk in exchange for inconsistent and unreliable shareholder protection. Executory ultra vires contracts concluded by limited capacity companies are at the same time valid and capable of being restrained by a single shareholder, director or prescribed officer of the company. It is argued that the Act’s approach to corporate capacity is detrimental to commercial certainty and creditor protection, and that capacity restrictions under the current framework do not provide any more shareholder protection than ordinary authority limitations would. Consequently, it is argued that the capacity provisions in the Act do not make a positive contribution to the “insolvency-remoteness” of SPVs used in traditional securitisation schemes. It is recommended that the capacity provisions in the Act should be substantially amended, or deleted.

The objective of this thesis is to research to what extent do the duties and powers conferred to the business rescue practitioner conflict with that of the directors during the business rescue proceedings since both of them form part of the management of the financially distressed company. In so doing, an analysis of the South African statutory provisions will be undertaken, followed by a probe into how those provisions can lead to the probable conflicts to be encountered between management and the practitioner, which can in turn considerably affect the effectiveness and success of the corporate reorganisation. In order to be able to find solutions to reduce possible conflicts, a juxtaposed analysis will be made with similarly statutory provisions in Australia, United Kingdom and United States of America.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015
ENGLISH ABSTRACT : The Companies Act 71 of 2008 introduces a completely new system for the regulation of distributions by a company to its shareholders. The preferred method for protecting the interests of creditors in distributions is now based on a solvency and liquidity test. Regrettably, the provisions setting out the requirements for distributions on the one hand and the solvency and liquidity test on the other have been poorly drafted. This thesis first explains and then applies an innovative interpretation theory to these provisions with a view to piecing together coherent content. The thesis finds that creative interpretations will not suffice in various places, meaning that substantive revision is required. The thesis concludes with brief amendment proposals and accompanying commentary.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 bied ‘n radikaal nuwe sisteem vir die regulering van uitkerings van 'n maatskappy aan sy aandeelhouers. Die voorkeur metode om die belange van skuldeisers in uitkerings te beskerm, is nou op ‘n solvensie- en likwiditeittoets gebaseer. Ongelukkig is die wetlike bepalings wat die vereistes vir uitkerings aan die een kant uiteensit, en die solvensie en likwiditeit toets aan die ander kant, swak opgestel. Hierdie tesis verduidelik eerstens die bepalings, en pas dan 'n innoverende interpretasie teorie op hierdie bepalings toe, met die doel om 'n samehangende inhoud daar te stel. Die tesis bevind dat kreatiewe interpretasies op verskeie plekke nie voldoende sal wees nie. Dit beteken dat substantiewe hersiening noodsaaklik is. Ten slotte bied die tesis kortliks wysigings-voorstelle met meegaande kommentaar.

LL.M. (Commercial Law)
South African company law has seen many changes in respect of corporate rescue, due to inter alia globalisation, increase in open trade, instant and freer communication and the need for better regulation of companies and stakeholders. As a result, the previous rescue mechanism of judicial management was widely criticised and poorly implemented. The Companies Act 71 of 20081 has however now replaced judicial management with business rescue. Business rescue encompasses many facets, most importantly the moratorium in section 133. Section 133 has already, and will even more so in future, have a dramatic impact on the launching or continuation of any legal or enforcement proceedings against a company undergoing business rescue, the status and enforceability of its contracts and the rights of affected parties (ie creditors, shareholders and directors). This study will discuss the general nature and effects of rescue moratoria and the moratoria (or lack thereof) created under the Companies Act 61 of 1973,2 the 2008 Companies Act and the administration procedure in England. The moratorium under each relevant rescue procedure will be analysed according to its purpose, nature, effects and procedure. As such, this study will attempt to set out why the section 133 moratorium is the cornerstone to the business rescue procedure and vital in securing the turnaround of the company. The section 133 moratorium will, to a great extent, determine whether business rescue is a saving grace in South Africa. I will discuss why I welcome business rescue (and its moratorium) and consider it an improvement on judicial management, but also what I regard as its inherent weaknesses. This study will conclude with my proposals regarding prudent amendments that have to be made to the 2008 Companies Act.

The Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“2008 Companies Act”) will have far reaching effects on the manner in which a company is formed and operated under South African company law and in particular entrenches the procedure that must be followed by a company when acquiring its own shares. The radical amendment of the capital maintenance rules by the introduction of the solvency and liquidity tests to the Companies Act 61 of 1973 has been carried forward under the 2008 Companies Act. These tests impose an obligation on a company to ensure that the company is both solvent and liquid at the time of the acquisition of its own shares and for a stated period thereafter. The 2008 Companies Act further brings the duties and liabilities of the directors in line with their current fiduciary duties in terms of common law.
Mercantile Law
LLM

LL.M. (Commercial Law)
Section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 allows a company, one or more of its directors or shareholders to apply to a court of law to wind up a solvent company. In essence, they can do so under three specified circumstances namely, where the directors are deadlocked in the management of the company and the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock, the shareholders are deadlocked in voting power and have failed for a period that includes at least two consecutive annual general meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have expired, or it is otherwise just and equitable for a company to be wound up. Item 9 schedule 5(1) of the Companies Act 2008 states that chapter 14 of the Companies Act 1973 continues to apply in regard to winding-up and liquidation of companies under the Companies Act 2008 as if the Companies Act 61 of 1973 has not been repealed. By virtue of this schedule, section 347 of the Companies Act 1973 still remains applicable. However, section 347(1) of the Companies Act 1973 still makes reference to section 346 of the Companies Act 1973 which is no longer applicable for winding-up of a solvent company and for that very reason it appears as though the intention is that section 347(1) of the Companies Act 1973 should not apply in such circumstances, I recommended that an amendment be made to the Companies Act 2008 to rectify this discrepancy. In light of the inclusion of section 347(2) of the Companies Act 1973, by virtue of item 9 schedule 5 of the Companies Act 2008, an application brought by shareholders places a definitive onus and an additional burden on the applicants to prove that they have exhausted all remedies available to them and they had no other alternative but to bring a winding-up application as a last resort. The all encompassing provision of section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 2008, I argued, should allow for a winding-up of a company, even in respect of the weaker forms of deadlock, where it does not fit neatly within section 81(1)(d)(i) and section 81(1)(d)(ii) of the Companies Act 2008. The word ‘otherwise’, in my opinion, has been correctly included in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 2008. The courts will inevitably be 8 | P a g e left to determine the perimeters of section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act in relation to the sections 81(1)(d)(i) and 81(1)(d)(ii) of the Companies Act 2008. I discovered striking similarities to the wording of the just and equitable provision and this wording has been consistent in various versions of the companies acts (both current and previous) in various jurisdictions. The ejusdem generis principle, I argued, is not applicable and the just and equitable provision needs to be looked at independently of the other grounds. From the recent case law arising on the interpretation of section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act 2008, it is clear that the various principles which were developed during the era of the previous companies acts were still applicable and relevant to the Companies Act 2008, unless the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa decides otherwise.

LLM
Department of Mercantile Law
Business rescue provisions are meant to assist a financially distressed company. It seems that the success of business rescue rests on three factors, namely a competent business rescue practitioner and a practicable business rescue plan; the consent and cooperation of shareholders and creditors. However, academics and case law point out concerns as to the regulation of the aforementioned essential ingredients. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the level of the efficacy of the Companies Act provisions on business rescue as contained in Chapter 6. The researcher compares the current business rescue regime and the previous judicial management procedure to find out how the current regime can be improved. Since the business rescue regime was adopted from other jurisdictions the researcher also compares the practices in some of those jurisdictions with that of South Africa to establish the goals and expectations of business rescue in modern corporate operations.
NRF

LLM
Department of Mercantile Law
This research examined the mechanisms that were employed by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 in order to protect the interests of creditors in company affairs. At the preamble of the aforementioned Act lies an undertaking from legislature to provide appropriate redress to investors and third parties/creditors. It was on that basis that the researcher sought to establish whether legislature had indeed fulfilled its commitment to provide appropriate redress to creditors. Traditionally, companies have been run to promote the interests of shareholders with little attention given to the interests of other stakeholders such as creditors. It is this research`s findings that South African company law has moved from the traditional view, that is the shareholder value approach, to the enlightened shareholder value approach: a model of corporate governance which permits directors to have regard, where appropriate, to the interests of other stakeholders but with shareholders’ interests retaining primacy. It is thus found that creditors cannot be protected by contract laws alone but that their protection should be enhanced by mandatory corporate laws which regulates the manner and conduct of company controllers in a way that ensures that the interests of all stakeholders, including creditors, are given due regard. Finally, it has been found that much work has been done by legislature in developing the re-enacted creditor protective mechanisms and also in statutorily adopting new mechanisms which are aimed at advancing creditor interests. Recommendations have thus been made to legislature for possible amendments to refine its corporate laws.
NRF

This thesis critically examines the statutory unfair prejudice remedy provided for in section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (‘the Act’). Section 163 is evaluated against its equivalents in England, Australia and Canada. Section 163 is considered against its predecessors to determine whether problems associated with the formulation and application of its predecessors have now been eradicated. It is argued that although it is important to ensure that company legislation is able to provide protection of an international standard to shareholders to be able to attract capital investment in a competitive market, one has to be cautious of slavishly following legislative trends in foreign jurisdictions. The South African legislature indiscriminately incorporated only parts of the Canadian unfair prejudice remedy in section 163. This approach also resulted, amongst others, in the introduction of foreign concepts. The legislature further failed to take cognisance of the unique historical developments relating to the unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa. This has led to the reintroduction of problems experienced with previous formulations of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa and left certain problems relating to the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy unresolved. Consideration is also given to the interrelationship between section 163 and some of the statutory remedies in the Act. Section 163 is also assessed in the context of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. In conclusion, recommendations for possible legislative amendments are made and an interpretational framework for the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in section 163 is provided.
Mercantile Law
LL. D. (Mercantile Law)

In conducting this study I want to give more clarity about the New Companies Act and how it compares to the Current Companies Act. According to the study and the results, the New Companies Act gives more protection to, specifically the shareholders and the creditors. The New Companies Act is much wider in some instances and gives more clarity. On the other hand the are still a lot of aspects that needs to be addressed. In this study I took a look at Sections 38, 226 and 85 of the Current Companies Act and then I compared it to Sections 44, 45, and 48 of the New Companies Act. With all the changes that have been brought to the New Companies Act it now, puts South African Law in line with the International standards of Company Law. Copyright
Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2010.
Mercantile Law
unrestricted

Section 71(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 has introduced into South African company law a provision which for the first time permits the board of directors to remove another director from office in certain specific instances. A further significant innovation in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is contained in section 162, which empowers a court to make an order declaring a director delinquent or placing him under probation in specific instances. The effect of section 162 is that a court is empowered to remove a director from the board of directors. The focus of this thesis is the removal of directors from office by the board of directors and by the judiciary. The thesis explores the underpinning philosophy of the statutory provisions relating to the removal of directors from office. It also examines the impact of the power given to the board of directors and to the courts to remove a director from office. The grounds and the procedures for the removal of directors by the board of directors and the judiciary are examined. The fiduciary duties applicable to directors in removing a director from the board of directors are also explored. In addition, this thesis examines the removal of directors holding multiple positions or capacities in relation to a company, such as an employee or a shareholder with loaded voting rights. The remedies which may be relied on by a director who has been removed from office by the board of directors are examined. Recommendations are made to strengthen and improve the provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 relating to the removal of directors from office by the board of directors and the judiciary. Amendments to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 are suggested to remove ambiguities; to guard against the abuse of sections 71(3) and 162; to improve the grounds and procedures for the removal of directors by the board of directors and the judiciary, and to enhance the remedies that may be relied on by a director who has been removed from office by the board of directors.
Artikel 71(3) van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 het ’n bepaling tot Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyreg toegevoeg wat die direksie vir die eerste keer in staat stel om ’n ander direkteur in sekere spesifieke gevalle uit sy of haar amp te verwyder. ’n Verdere belangrike vernuwing in die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word in artikel 162 vervat, wat ’n hof magtig om ’n bevel uit te vaardig wat ’n direkteur misdadig verklaar of hom of haar in spesifieke gevalle aan ’n proeftydperk onderwerp. Die effek van artikel 162 is dat ’n hof by magte is om ’n direkteur uit die direksie te verwyder. Die fokus van hierdie tesis is die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte deur die direksie en die regbank. Die tesis verken die onderliggende filosofie van die statutêre bepalings wat met die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte verband hou. Dit ondersoek ook die impak van die bevoegdheid wat aan die direksie en die howe verleen word om ’n direkteur uit sy of haar amp te verwyder. Die gronde en prosedures vir die verwydering van direkteure deur die direksie en die regbank word ondersoek. Die fidusiêre pligte van toepassing op direkteure by die verwydering van ’n direkteur uit die direksie word ook verken. Daarbenewens ondersoek hierdie tesis die verwydering van direkteure wat veelvuldige posisies of hoedanighede met betrekking tot ’n maatskappy beklee, soos ʼn werknemer of aandeelhouer met gelaaide stemregte. Die regsmiddele waarop ’n direkteur, wat deur die direksie uit sy of haar amp verwyder is, kan steun, word ondersoek. Aanbevelings word gemaak om die bepalings in die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008, wat met die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte deur die direksie en regbank verband hou, te versterk en te verbeter. Wysigings aan die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word voorgestel om dubbelsinnighede uit te skakel; om teen die misbruik van artikels 71(3) en 162 te waak; om die gronde en prosedures vir die verwydering van direkteure deur die direksie en die regbank te verbeter, en om die regsmiddele waarop ’n direkteur wat deur die direksie uit sy of haar amp verwyder is kan steun, te versterk.
ISigaba 71(3) Somthetho weZinkampani 71 ka 2008 sewuze wangenisa emithethweni yezinkampani zaseNingizimu Afrika, umthetho ongowokuqala ovumela ibhodi labaqondisi ukuthi libe namandla wokugudluza omunye umqondisi esikhundleni sakhe ngaphansi kwezimo ezithile. Olunye ushintsho olusha kuMthetho wama-71 weZinkampani ka 2008 uqukethwe yiSigaba 162, wona ugunyaza inkantolo ukuthi ikhiphe umyalelo owazisa umqondisi ngokuthi unecala noma obeka umqondisi ngaphansi kophenyo, phecelezi “probation” ngesinye isikhathi. Inhloso yeSigaba 162 wukunikeza inkantolo igunya lokugudluza umqondisi kwibhodi labaqondisi. Impokophelo yale thisisi wukugudluzwa kwabaqondisi, bagudluzwe yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho/nobulungisa. Ithisisi ihlola ifilosofi yemithetho ekhishiwe emayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi ezikhundleni zabo, Kanti futhi ihlola umthelela wamandla anikezwe ibhodi labaqondisi kanye nezinkantolo ukuthi zigudluze umqondisi esikhundleni. Izizathu kanye nengqubo elandelwayo mayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho nazo ziyahlolwa. Imisebenzi emayelana nokuthembeka eyenziwa ngabaqondisi ukugudluza umqondisi kwibhodi labaqondisi nayo iyacwaningwa Ngaphezu kwalokhu, le thisisi .iphenya ukugudluzwa kwabaqondisi abaqokwe ezikhundleni eziningi noma abanegunya elithize ngokwengqubo yenkampani, enjengesisebenzi, phecelezi “employee” noma umabelwa-mashezi onamalungelo amaningi okuvota, phecelezi, “loaded with voting rights”. Izeluleko ezingasetshenziswa wumqondisi ogudluzwe esikhundleni sakhe yibhodi labaqondisi nazo ziyahlolwa. Izincomo nazo ziyenziwa ngenhloso yokuqinisa kanye nokuthuthukiswa kwamandla oMthetho we-71 weZinkampani ka 2008, mayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi ezikhundleni yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho. Izinguquko zoMthetho wama-71 weZinkampani ka 2008 ziqonde ukususa izixakaxaka, ukulwa nokudlelezelwa kweSigaba 71(3) kanye no 162, ukuthuthukisa izizathu kanye nezingqubo zokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho, ukuqinisa izindlela zokulungisa ezingasetshenziswa wumqondisi osegudluziwe esikhundleni yibhodi labaqondisi.
Mercantile Law
LL. D.

LL.M. (Commercial Law)
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed by Parliament on 19 November 2008 and assented to by the President on 8 April 2009. The Act came into force on 1 May 2011 and contains the provisions regulating the new business rescue proceedings that replace judicial management under the Companies Act 61 of 1973. However, since the introduction of Chapter 6 of the Act, the courts South Africa still appear to be finding their feet with regard to many of the Act’s provisions. In spite of this, the new business rescue practice has become an important part of the South African corporate framework. The outbreak of recent case law has started to shape the direction, which business rescue, as interpreted by the Courts, is taking. An important debate among the courts is whether the courts should rescue a business entity or liquidating the businesses assets in order to settle claims against it. While a liquidation aims to divide the profit from the sale of assets amongst creditors and to dissolve the company, business rescue legislation provides for a restructuring of the financial structure of a distressed debtor to save the business as a going concern and to assist the settlement of claims against the business in full. The business rescue proceedings have been provided for by legislation in the Act, however, the result of the vast recent court decisions show that the Act may not be relied upon unconditionally without proper regard to the circumstances of each case. This research analyses the appropriateness of business rescue as opposed to liquidation by specifically looking at the requirements for a successful business rescue order. This research further analyses whether the decisions of the courts in present case law are on the correct path when interpreting the business recuse provisions in terms of the Act.

As a company is a juristic person it can only act through human agency. A question that arises because of this fact is under what circumstances a company can be held to a contract by a third party where its representative was unauthorised to enter into such contract. There should be a careful weighing and balancing of the interests of the shareholders and the company on the one hand and the contracting third party on the other. It is further important to have legal certainty on the validity and enforceability of contracts concluded by and with companies as the absence of certainty can hamper business dealings with companies which would have an impact on the economy. The common-law principles of agency form the foundation upon which representation within the context of company law takes place. The law of agency has been adapted in the context of company law to satisfy the unique needs that have originated in this regard. One such adaptation is the creation of the Turquand rule by the English courts which rule was taken over by the South African courts. One of the primary reasons for creating the Turquand rule was due to the harsh effect that the common-law doctrine of constructive notice had on third parties dealing with a company. In this study an examination of the current legal position regarding representation of a company in South Africa was undertaken. The history and development of the common-law principles of agency and doctrines that are unique to representation in a company law context are analysed and the relevant sections of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 are discussed. The integration of the common-law principles with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is considered and recommendations are made in respect thereof. In support of the analysis, a comparative study was undertaken of the history and development of this subject matter in England. It was concluded that South African company law, with all its shortcomings and uncertainties is still to be preferred above the position in England.
Aangesien ‘n maatskappy ‘n regspersoon is, kan dit slegs deur middel van natuurlike persone as agente optree. ‘n Vraag wat as gevolg van hierdie feit ontstaan is onder watter omstandighede ‘n maatskappy deur ‘n derde party gebonde gehou kan word aan ‘n kontrak waar die maatskappy se verteenwoordiger nie gemagtig was om die kontrak aan te gaan nie. Daar behoort ‘n versigtige afweging te wees tussen die belange van die maatskappy en sy aandeelhouers aan die een kant en ‘n derde party wat met die maatskappy kontrakteer aan die ander kant. Dit is verder belangrik om regsekerheid te hê oor die geldigheid en afdwingbaarheid van kontrakte wat met maatskappye aangegaan word aangesien die afwesigheid daarvan besigheidsverkeer met maatskappye kan kortwiek wat ‘n impak op die ekonomie tot gevolg sal hê. Die gemeenregtelike beginsels van verteenwoordiging vorm die basis waarop verteenwoordiging binne die konteks van maatskappyereg plaasvind. Verteenwoordigingsreg is aangepas binne die konteks van maatskappye om voorsiening te maak vir die unieke behoeftes wat in hierdie verband ontstaan het. Een sodanige aanpassing is die skepping van die Turquand reël deur die Engelse howe, welke reël deur die Suid-Afrikaanse howe oorgeneem is. Een van die hoofredes vir die skepping van die Turquand reël is die onregverdige uitwerking wat die gemeenregtelike leerstuk van toegerekende kennis op derde partye gehad het wat met ‘n maatskappy onderhandel. ‘n Studie van die huidige regsposisie rakende verteenwoordiging van ‘n maatskappy in Suid-Afrika is hierin gedoen. Die geskiedenis en ontwikkeling van die gemeenregtelike beginsels van verteenwoordiging en leerstukke eie aan verteenwoordiging in die konteks van maatskappyereg is geanaliseer. Die betrokke artikels van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word bespreek. Die integrasie van hierdie gemeenregtelike beginsels met die betrokke bepalings van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 is oorweeg en aanbevelings in verband daarmee gemaak. Ter ondersteuning van die analise is ‘n vergelykende studie van die gekiedenis en ontwikkeling van hierdie onderwerp in Engeland onderneem. Daar is tot die slotsom gekom dat die Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyereg, met al sy tekortkominge en onsekerhede nogsteeds bo die posisie in Engeland te verkies is.
Mercantile Law
LL. M.

LL.M. (Commercial Law)
The introduction of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 into the South African corporate insolvency setting had a noteworthy impact on procedures as we knew it and replaced its predecessor, judicial management in terms of the Companies Act no 61 of 1973. Chapter 6 provides for business rescue proceeding, its main function being to assist and rehabilitate financially distressed companies. The significance of this chapter is that it promotes proactive action to be taken by companies in initiating business rescue proceedings when possible financial distress becomes apparent. Business rescue proceedings can commence by making use of S 129 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 or of S 130 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008. S 129 allows for the board of directors of the company to pass a resolution permitting business rescue proceedings to apply to the relevant company. S 130, on the other hand, makes provision for an affected person to apply to the High Court with a query regarding a company and business rescue proceedings. A remarkable number of new provisions were introduced relating to business rescue procedures and with their introduction came the responsibility of our Courts to interpret its rightful place within our law. As a result, the valuable question of when our courts should aim to rescue a company and when to liquidate the company’s assets in order to settle its debts, must be asked. Both proceedings have the same aim; that is helping the financially distressed company pay its debts. However, both also employ vastly different methods to achieve their aims and with different consequences. Business rescue aspires to rescue the company by restructuring its financial arrangements in order to allow for the business of the company to be sold as a going concern. Business rescue further aims to help the company settle all its claims against it in full. Liquidation, on the other hand, aspires to sell all the company’s assets and divide the profit of the sale to settle the claims of the company’s creditors. The company will thereafter be dissolved. This dissertation aims to analyse the suitability of business proceedings compared to liquidation proceedings by purposefully examining the requirements for both proceedings as well as their advantages. Furthermore, this dissertation will provide for a comparative study between the Australian and South African business rescue proceedings respectively.

This research looks at the need and enforceability of legal warranties that companies include in contracts and/or public displays/notices to limit the company’s liability exposure to third parties. It also discusses the liability incurred by a company and that of its directors in their personal capacities (if any) should the legal warranty implemented be found to be unenforceable. The liability that may be incurred by the company and/or its director/s is dependent on whether the legal warranty which it implemented is enforceable or not and therefore it is important to establish what would constitute an enforceable legal warranty. In order to determine what is likely to constitute an enforceable legal warranty the study looks back at what has previously been deemed to constitute an unenforceable legal warranty. This is done by analysing the common law principles of contract, being the freedom to contract and the sanctity of contract, and its development in accordance with our constitutional dispensation through case law precedents. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 that apply to legal warranties are also analysed in order to determine the anticipated outcome of future case law where the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 may be applicable to a dispute involving legal warranties. Once what constitutes an unenforceable legal warranty is established, the study will discuss the legal position of a third party, and that of the company, where a third party has suffered damages as a result of the company’s acts or omissions and the company is unable to raise a legal warranty as a defence against such liability, as the legal warranty is found to be unenforceable. Thereafter the study will discuss the measures available to the company where the company is found liable to the third party for the aforementioned damages and the company wishes to mitigate its losses in this regard. Such measures shall include director insurance as well as the recovery of such liability against a director, in the director’s personal capacity, where the company either does not have director insurance or is unable to enforce the director insurance due to the actions of a director. In order to determine the director’s accountability to the company in this regard an assessment is made of the duties imposed on a director in terms of the common law and Companies Act 71 of 2008 to establish whether such duties are wide enough to include a duty on the director to ensure legal warranties he/she plays a part in implementing are enforceable.
Mercantile Law
LL. M. (Corporate Law)

Company directors, being human, may be tempted to promote their own interests rather than those of the companies on whose boards they serve. Directors are subject to a number of legal duties. A director has a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company. A number of other duties flow from this duty such as the duty to avoid a conflict of interests. The duty of a director not to appropriate a corporate opportunity belonging to the company of which he or she is a director, also flows from the duty to avoid a conflict of interests. The common-law duties of directors which have their origins in English law, have developed over a number of years. Because of the difficulty that directors had in establishing what their duties were, a number of jurisdictions embarked on a process of codifying or partially codifying these duties. South Africa, Australia and England are three countries that have promulgated legislation which has resulted in the codification or partial codification of directors’ duties. The purpose of the codification or partial codification of directors’ duties was firstly to clarify the duties of directors, and secondly to make the duties more accessible to those affected by them – the directors of companies. In South Africa the Companies Act 71 of 2008 has partially codified the duties of directors. Because directors’ duties have only been partially codified there is uncertainty regarding their scope. This dissertation will focus on the possible effect of the 2008 Companies Act on the duty of a director not to take a corporate opportunity falling to the company. In this dissertation I address two issues involving the effect of the 2008 Companies Act on the duty of a director not to appropriate a corporate opportunity belonging to the company. Firstly, I consider whether the partially codified directors’ duties are wide enough to cover issues involving the appropriation of corporate opportunities. Secondly, I consider the appropriate common-law test or tests to be applied in determining whether, in the specific circumstances, an opportunity should be classified as a corporate opportunity. In considering whether the partially codified duties of directors are wide enough to include the corporate-opportunity rule, I compare the approach to corporate opportunities and the corporate-opportunity rule in South Africa, Australia and England.
Mercantile Law
LL.M. (Corporation Law)

The Companies Act of 71 of 2008 makes a number of important changes to the rules relating to capital maintenance. In line with the objectives of the Companies Act of 71 of 2008, section 44 of the Act has removed the prohibition on the provision of financial assistance by a company which was contained under the previous section 38 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. Despite the repeal of the prohibition, a transaction which involves the provision of financial assistance by a company for the acquisition of or subscription of its own securities still needs to be effected in accordance with the requirements and conditions that are provided under the Act and Memorandum of Incorporation. To explore the new developments, within this study, the provision of financial assistance in terms of section 44 of the Companies Act of 2008 is, therefore, analysed in detail. On the other hand, the UK Companies Act of 2006 repealed the prohibition on the giving of financial assistance by private companies in most circumstances. It, however, retained the prohibition to public companies only because of the requirements of the Second Company Law Directive (77/91/EEC). This study also explores the rules of financial assistance by a company under the UK Companies Acts in detail. Though the source of financial assistance by a company both in South Africa and in English Company laws is rooted in the English decision of the Trevor v Whitworth case, currently these countries have adopted what is deemed appropriate and significant in their own countries. This study, therefore, examines and compares the rules governing the provision of financial assistance by a company in the company laws of these two countries.
Mercantile Law
LL.M. (Commercial law)

This paper examines the different share valuation methods and principles likely to be used by a court in determining the fair value of dissenting shareholders’ shares in appraisal proceedings in terms of section 164(14) of the Companies Act 2008. It is submitted that the valuation principles and methods used by the courts will affect the operation of the triggering actions contemplated in subsections 164(2)(a) - (b). It is proposed that section 164 court appraisals are likely to be guided by the valuation methods and principles developed in section 252 and section 440K court appraisals under the Companies Act 1973, as well as by the decisions of the courts in the state of Delaware relating to share valuations under the appraisal remedy. It is further proposed that the purpose ascribed to the appraisal remedy will influence the application of these valuation methods and principles.
Mercantile Law
LL.M. (Corporate law)