Die vertrouensverpligtinge van ondernemingsreddingspraktisyns: ’n regsvergelykende studie - Jacobs, Lezelle Marianne (University of the Free State, 2015)
When the Companies Act 71 of 2008 came into effect it brought about a new era of corporate rescue for South African companies. Chapter 6 of the Act provides for a new corporate rescue scheme, known as business rescue. Business rescue replaces the previous South African rescue model, judicial management, contained in the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The key role player in the rescue scheme is, however, the business rescue practitioner. The practitioner is afforded with extensive powers and rights. He takes over control of the management of the company and the duty to rescue the company rests on his shoulders. It is, however, possible that the purposes of chapter 6 to protect the interests of all stakeholders can be frustrated through the incompetence, partiality and carelessness of the practitioner. The practitioner is placed in a position of confidence with a number of stakeholders including the company, shareholders, employees and creditors of the company. Section 140(3)(b) of the Act states that the practitioner has the responsibilities, duties and liabilities of a director of the company for the duration of the rescue proceedings. The responsibilities, duties and liabilities of directors are set out in sections 75, 76 and 77. These sections contain the quasi-codified fiduciary duties of directors and therefore make them applicable to the practitioner. The practitioner is therefore a fiduciary. There is, however, uncertainty regarding the legal position of the practitioner as fiduciary. For this reason it was necessary to establish the nature and extent of these duties. This study examined the practitioner’s duty to act with good faith as well as his duty to act with care and skill. In conclusion it is found that the practitioner is in a unique position and that his fiduciary duties are sui generis in nature. He owes his fiduciary duties to all the affected persons according to a ranking. It became clear that the protection of these parties’ interest will involve a careful balancing of interests. The study culminates in a code of conduct for South African business rescue practitioners. The code of conduct could act as a compass when the practitioner is confronted with a difficult ethical decision or dilemma.

Met die inwerkingtreding van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 het nuwe era van korporatiewe redding vir Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappye aangebreek. Hoofstuk 6 van die Wet maak voorsiening vir ’n nuwe reddingskema wat as ondernemingsredding bekend staan. Ondernemingsredding vervang die vorige reddingsmodel in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg, naamlik geregtelike bestuur, wat in die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973 vervat was. Die sleutelfiguur in die nuwe reddingskema is ongetwyfeld die ondernemingsreddingspraktisyn. Die praktisyn word met omvattende magte en bevoegdhede beklee. Hy neem die beheer en bestuur van die maatskappy oor en die taak van redding rus dus op sy skouers. Tog kan hy weens onbekwaamheid, partydigheid of sorgeloosheid veroorsaak dat die doelstellings van hoofstuk 6, naamlik om alle belanghebbendes in die reddingspoging te beskerm, verydel word. Die praktisyn word in ’n posisie van vertroue teenoor ’n verskeidenheid ander belanghebbendes geplaas, insluitend die maatskappy, aandeelhouers, werknemers en skuldeisers van die maatskappy. Artikel 140(3)(b) van die Wet bepaal dat die reddingspraktisyn vir die duur van die verrigtinge dieselfde verantwoordelikhede, verpligtinge en aanspreeklikheid as die direkteure van die maatskappy het. Die verantwoordelikhede, verpligtinge en aanspreeklikheid van direkteure word in artikels 75, 76 en 77 van die Wet uiteengesit. Hierdie artikels bevat die kwasi-gekodifiseerde vertrouensverpligtinge van direkteure en maak dus hierdie verpligtinge ook op die praktisyn van toepassing. Die praktisyn is derhalwe beslis ’n troupligtige. Daar heers egter onsekerheid oor die regsposisie ten aansien van die praktisyn se vertrouensverpligtinge, en derhalwe moet die aard en omvang van dié verpligtinge vasgestel word. Die studie stel ondersoek in na die praktisyn se verpligting tot goeie trou sowel as sy plig tot sorg en vaardigheid. Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die praktisyn hom in ‘n unieke posisie bevind end at die aard van sy vertrouensverpligtinge eiesoortig is. Daar word verder bevind dat die praktisyn sy vertrouensverpligtinge aan die geaffekteerde persone verskuldig is in bepaalde rangorde en dat die beskerming van hierdie persone se belange sorgvuldige opweging van belange inhou. Die studie loop uiteindelik uit op ‘n gedragskode vir Suid-Afrikaanse ondernemingsreddingspraktisyns. Hierdie gedragskode kan as rigtingwyser dien wanneer die praktisyn met moeilike etiese besluite of dilemmas gekonfronteer word.
Thesis (LL.D. (Mercantile Law))--University of the Free State, 2015
Keywords: Care; Best interest; Business judgement rule; Business rescue; Business rescue practitioner; Corporate rescue; Fiduciary duties; Good faith; Insolvency law; Proper purpose; Business failure -- Law and legislation; Corporation law; Success in business