Doctoral Degrees (Mercantile Law)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Doctoral Degrees (Mercantile Law) by Author "Snyman-Van Deventer, E."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A business rescue model for unincorporated business entities in South Africa(University of the Free State, 2022) Mpofu, Kudzai; Moolman, H. J.; Snyman-Van Deventer, E.The significance of small and medium enterprises in promoting economic growth has received sufficient academic and legislative attention. However, little attention has been paid towards promoting and promulgating legislation that oversees the recovery of small enterprises in financial distress. The study compares business rescue schemes applicable to sole proprietorships and partnerships to draw lessons for the legislature and policymakers in South Africa. The current legislation on business rescue and debt review intentionally exclude sole proprietorships and partnerships mainly because of their legal personality. The Companies Act of 2008 only admits incorporated companies to business rescue. Furthermore, the National Credit Act 2005 excludes partnerships from debt review because the legislature classified them as juristic persons. For this reason, sole proprietorships and partnerships in financial distress cannot depend on the current legislation to facilitate restructuring proceedings. Therefore, the study identifies the key elements of an effective business rescue scheme which may apply to unincorporated business entities. Through a comparative assessment of different rescue regimes, it was concluded that an efficient rescue scheme must consist of an eligibility criterion, a procedural framework consisting of a step-by-step rescue process and an institutional framework with already pre-determined role players. The main conclusions from the study are that the eligibility criterion must only admit business debtors to the business rescue process. On that note, it was observed that it would be necessary to regulate the liability of sole proprietorships and partnerships during the rescue process. This may be achieved by recognising them (sole proprietorships and partnerships) as legal persons for purposes of business rescue. The study shows that the step-by-step procedure should include a commencement procedure that allows owners of sole proprietorships and partners in a partnership to apply for business rescue. As soon as the procedure commences, a moratorium on creditors' rights must be automatically activated. The stay should protect the business, the owners, and the codebtors. While the moratorium is the operation, the business rescue practitioner must prepare a business rescue plan that includes the treatment of secured and unsecured creditors. More so, consideration must be made on the possibility of selling parts of the business, merging the business with other successful businesses or incorporating the business. The study revealed that it may be necessary for the legislature to allow the debtor to continue borrowing during the business rescue process. However, the rescue process is terminated if the business rescue plan is fully implemented or the debtor faces unforeseen economic hardships. The effect of termination is that the debtor is discharged. The study indicates that the institutional structure should include the debtor, the business rescue practitioner and a specialised judge. The success of business rescue depends on the honesty and cooperation of the debtor. It was concluded that to reduce the cost of business, rescue the debtor may remain in control of its business but must be monitored regularly by appointing a state-sponsored business rescue practitioner who reports to the creditors. In the event that the creditors have reason to mistrust the debtor's honesty, they may choose to appoint and pay for a private business rescue practitioner jointly. In that case, the debtor must cooperate with the business rescue practitioner who oversees or monitors the rescue process. The business rescue practitioner must regularly report to the creditors and the court about the success or failures of the debtor. Since business rescue involves different areas of study, including business, law and financing, it was concluded that South Africa might need a specialised court system. Establishing an administrative institution akin to the Office of the official receiver would also be necessary to oversee the rescue process. Such an institution may be subsidised by the state to reduce the cost of business rescue. Generally, most of the observations made during the study were included in the recommendation to the legislature.Item Open Access 'n Regsvergelykende studie aangaande die leerstuk lig van die korporatiewe sluier(University of the Free State, 2013-02) Keuler, Anel; Snyman-Van Deventer, E.English: Lifting of the corporate veil as an exception to the rule of limited liability surely is one of the most litigated issues in corporate law worldwide. The reason being the lack in predictability and sturdy rules that can be used as guidelines when setting aside the corporate veil. The common approach of courts is to determine each case on its own merits which left the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil enveloped in the mist of metaphor, unpredictable and vague. As an answer to the need for sturdy guidelines section 20(9) was implemented in die 2008 Companies Act stating that the separateness of a legal person can be set aside if an unconscionable misuse of the corporate personality has taken place. Section 20(9) however does not state what exactly will be deemed as an unconscionable misuse. The interpretation of unconscionable misuse is there for left to the courts discretion. The aim of this study is to find answers to this vagueness and uncertainty by identifying possible grounds or guidelines for lifting of the corporate veil. During this comparative study attention is also given to the legal state of matters regarding lifting of the corporate veil in Australia, the United States of America and Canada to identify useful guidelines and principles which will assist the South-African courts in setting aside the corporate veil. The Australians considers the proceeding of business under insolvent circumstances as a statutory ground for lifting the veil. The American courts also show support for fraud as a ground for lifting the corporate veil. A solid Canadian ground for lifting the corporate veil is in the family context where one party would unjustly suffer a loss if the other parties company is treated as a separate entity. The Canadians also considers tax evasion and not adding the suffix “Ltd” to the company name as grounds for lifting the corporate veil. These mentioned grounds for lifting the corporate veil can surely be adopted by the South-African courts as part of a sturdy set of guidelines.