Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This research traces the developments of the directors’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and looks at how these developments affect human rights and interests of stakeholders. The main focus of the study is on the human rights impact of this duty. Initially, this duty was only regulated in terms of common law which proved to be problematic. The problem with common law lies within the definition of ‘best interests of the company’, which not only exclude the interests of other stakeholders but also has the potential to bring about violation of human rights, particularly the rights to equality, dignity and fair labour practice. At common law best interests of the company means interests of the company itself and its shareholders. The common law only protects the company and its shareholders, while excluding the rights and interests of stakeholders. The common law duty to in the best interests of the company is not in line with our contemporary law because it ignores human rights. The neglect of human rights by this duty renders it inconsistent with the values contained in the Constitution. Furthermore, the exclusion of stakeholders’ rights by this duty cannot be justified because stakeholders play an important part in safeguarding the stability and continued existence of the companies. The fiduciary duty to act in company’s best interests is now contained in the Companies Act of 2008. Inclusion of this duty in the Act enables our courts to interpret it in a manner that protects human rights and which takes into account interests of other stakeholders. Section 7 (a) of the Act provides that among other goals of the Act is the promotion of compliance with the Bill of Rights when applying the company law. The impact of section 7 is that it imposes an indirect duty on directors to consider the human rights impact of their decisions. Section 158 of the Act enables the courts to “develop common law as it is necessary to improve the realisation and enjoyment of rights established by the Companies Act of 2008.” Given this recognition of the Bill of Rights by the Companies Act, it’s of vital importance that our courts should interpret and apply the duty to act in the best interests of the company in manner that is consistent with the Constitution. Directors are now obliged to pay attention to the human rights impact of their decisions.

No abstract provided.

South Africa is currently undergoing harsh economic times, and as such, many companies are feeling the brunt of the situation. As a result, these companies begin to trade at a loss and are left without any other option but to liquidate their affairs in order to pay off creditors. However, with the development brought by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act”), business rescue was introduced. Business rescue is an alternative to liquidation and it allows the company to undergo rehabilitation and continue trading if certain requirements are met. Chapter 6 of the Act aims to assist businesses in providing some sort of relief in the form of business rescue to provide them with the breathing space that they require to try and become a viable business again. Just like any new formulated concept, it is susceptible to abuse. Many companies that are already under liquidation are suspending their liquidation in favour of business rescue, despite, in some instances, the liquidation order having already been granted against the company. The Covid-19 pandemic has made the question of whether a business can suspend liquidation proceedings in favour of business rescue more prevalent as the pandemic has caused a detrimental financial impact on a number of businesses. Now more than ever businesses find themselves struggling to keep afloat, and as a result many of them have to consider the avenues of liquidation or business rescue. This dissertation aims to look at both liquidation and business rescue proceedings and decipher whether the courts were correct in their decision regarding when business rescue proceedings can be instituted during liquidation proceedings. The importance of taking into account the above is due to the fact that many companies in present day are experiencing financial difficulties, and liquidation or business rescue proceedings are the options that they are left with. However, one has to carefully consider both options, taking into account the company’s financial circumstances. This is of importance, as one needs to establish if there is a reasonable prospect of rescuing the company or not. If there were, then business rescue would indeed be the route to be taken, but if not, then liquidation proceedings would be. However, many companies that have no prospect of being rescued, and that have already opted for liquidation may want to institute business rescue proceedings to delay the inevitable and frustrate creditors, thus leading to the abuse of the newly formulated concept, which has to be curbed.

No abstract provided.

Abstract available in pdf.