Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Lézelle
dc.contributor.authorBurdette, David
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-26T12:21:16Z
dc.date.available2019-06-26T12:21:16Z
dc.date.available2019-12-31
dc.date.issued2019-06-11
dc.identifier.citationJacobs, L. and Burdette, D., (2019) Queue Politely! South African Business Rescue Practitioners and Their Fees in Liquidation. Diener N.O. V Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others [2017] Zasca 180; [2018] 1 All Sa 317 (Sca); 2018 (2) Sa 399 (Sca), Wolverhampton Law Journal, 2(1), pp. 61-69.en
dc.identifier.issn2517-8121en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/622482
dc.description.abstractIn May 2011 South Africa’s new corporate rescue procedure, known as “business rescue”, came into operation. The mechanism is contained in Chapter 6 of the Companies Act 2008 (the SA Companies Act) and replaces the previous corporate rescue mechanism known as judicial management. While business rescue appears to have worked quite well since its inception eight years ago, there have been a number of court judgments that have been critical of the fact that many provisions of the new procedure have not been well drafted. One of these provisions, relating to the payment of unpaid remuneration of the business rescue practitioner (BRP) where a company’s business rescue procedure is converted to a liquidation, recently gave rise to litigation with the Courts focusing on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. The remuneration of insolvency practitioners is a contentious issue as much in the UK as in South Africa (and is indeed a bone of contention throughout the world). In February of this year the right honourable Frank Field MP, the chair of the UK House of Commons’ Work and Pensions Committee, commented on the £44.2 million to be paid in fees to Price Waterhouse Coopers in relation to one year’s Insolvency work on Carillion as “milking the cash cow”. This note endeavours to comment on the South African Courts’ interpretation of provisions relating to the payment of remuneration to BRPs in the event that the business rescue procedure is superseded by liquidation.en
dc.formatapplication/PDFen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherUniversity of Wolverhamptonen
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.wlv.ac.uk/research/institutes-and-centres/law-research-centre/wolverhampton-law-journal/en
dc.subjectInsolvency Practitionersen
dc.subjectRemunerationen
dc.subjectSouth Africaen
dc.titleQueue Politely! South African Business Rescue Practitioners and their fees in Liquidation. Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others [2017] ZASCA 180; [2018] 1 All SA 317 (SCA); 2018 (2) SA 399 (SCA)en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.eissn2632-1343
dc.identifier.journalWolverhampton Law Journalen
dc.date.updated2019-06-20T13:57:39Z
dc.date.accepted2019-06-07
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of Wolverhamptonen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUOW260619LJen
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-06-11en
dc.source.volume2
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage61
dc.source.endpage69
refterms.dateFCD2019-06-26T12:20:28Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2019-06-26T12:21:17Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Jacobs_and_Burdette_Queue_poli ...
Size:
215.5Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record