1887

oa Litnet Akademies : 'n Joernaal vir die Geesteswetenskappe, Natuurwetenskappe, Regte en Godsdienswetenskappe - Ondersoek na die bevoegdhede en aanspreeklikheid van die ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn as maatskappydokter : regte

 

Abstract

Die navorsing handel in hoofsaak oor die bevoegdhede en aanspreeklikheid van die ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn, 'n sleutelfiguur in enige korporatiewe reddingspoging. Die doel van die navorsing is om vas te stel wat die nuwe 2008-Maatskappywet bepaal oor die werksaamhede van die ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn en hoe hierdie bevoegdhede en verpligtinge verskil van dié wat die geregtelike bestuurder ingevolge die 1973-wet gehad het. Die geregtelike bestuurder en ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn word met mekaar in hierdie opsig vergelyk.


Dit blyk uit die navorsing dat die werksaamhede van die reddingspraktisyn nie 'n geweldige gedaanteverwisseling ondergaan het nie. Soos met die geregtelike bestuursmodel is die vernaamste verpligting van die reddingspraktisyn steeds om die beheer en bestuur van die maatskappy by die direksie oor te neem. Die reddingspraktisyn het egter een baie belangrike verpligting bygekry, naamlik die opstel en implementering van 'n ondernemingsreddingsplan. Daar word ook ondersoek ingestel na die persoonlike aanspreeklikheid wat deur die ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn opgedoen kan word.
Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die uitbreiding van die bevoegdhede en pligte van die reddingspraktisyn 'n positiewe bydrae kan lewer tot suksesvolle reddingspogings en dat Suid-Afrika ondersoek behoort in te stel na die beter regulering van insolvensiepraktisyns.


Although the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 has not been in effect for a very long time, more companies are availing themselves of the business rescue provisions contained in chapter 6 of the act. Some of these companies have achieved success and some not. It is clear, however, that one of the most important role players in these proceedings is the business rescue practitioner, the person responsible for administering the rehabilitation process for the financially distressed company.
The previous act, the Companies Act 61 of 1973, made use of the judicial management system. The judicial manager was also the key role player in these proceedings. Judicial management was not a very successful procedure and some of the problems regarding the procedure revolved around the judicial manager and his duties.
This article sets out to evaluate the provisions pertaining to the powers and the duties of the rescue practitioner contained in the 2008 Companies Act in order to ascertain whether the new provisions constitute improvements or not. This is done by comparing the current provisions with the provisions contained in the previous act and the international guidelines provided for in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law.
It is clear from the comparative study that there has not been a major transformation in the new act with regard to the duties of the practitioner. As with the judicial management system the main duty of the practitioner is to take over control of the company. The judicial manager divested the board of directors of all the control in the company. An important difference is that the new act provides for the management of the company to remain in place while being overseen by the practitioner. However, he practitioner has the power to delegate any power or function and even has the power to remove certain people from their office. This implies that he still has ultimate control over the management of the company, while there are some functions and duties that the directors must still comply with subject to his authority.
Upon being appointed the practitioner also has the important duty to promptly investigate the affairs of the company, its business property and financial situation. Most of the responsibilities and duties of the practitioner are dependent on the outcome this investigation.
The business rescue practitioner, like his predecessor under the old act, is regarded as an officer of the court and in addition to his normal duties has the responsibility to inform the court if at any time he concludes that: (i) there is no reasonable prospect for the company to be rescued; (ii) there are no longer reasonable grounds to believe the company is in distress; or (iii) there is evidence of reckless trading or fraud.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/litnet/10/1/EJC137975
2013-03-01
2016-12-04
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error