September 21, 2020
“The purpose of the legislature in enacting s 34(1) is to protect creditors by preventing traders who are in financial difficulty from disposing of their business assets to third parties who are not liable for the debts of the business, without due advertisement to all the creditors of the business.” (Extract from judgement below)
With our economy in trouble and the ongoing pandemic and lockdown damaging more and more businesses by the day, sales by distressed companies and traders are likely to rocket.
If you are a prospective buyer here, be aware of one particular danger lurking in the wings for you.
Follow this rule to protect yourself – before you buy any business, its goodwill or assets forming part of the business, take legal advice as to whether or not the sale must first be advertised in terms of section 34 the Insolvency Act. You stand to lose both the business and the purchase price if section 34 requires the sale to be advertised and it isn’t.
Your risk is that if an unadvertised sale is challenged by a liquidator/trustee (or by a creditor if there is no liquidation/sequestration) within 6 months of the sale, it is likely to be declared void. In that event, you will be lucky to get even a portion of your purchase price back – with the seller in financial difficulty your concurrent claim is probably worthless.
As a creditor…
The advertising requirement is designed to protect you as a creditor from having to claim from a debtor which suddenly becomes a worthless shell having quietly sold away its business and/or assets beyond your reach.
Note that you only have protection if you have instituted proceedings against your debtor “for the purpose of enforcing [your] claim” before the transfer of the business – a good reason not to drag your heels when suing a recalcitrant debtor.
When advertisement isn’t necessary
The sale will only be valid without advertisement if –
- The sale was made “in the ordinary course of business” (unlikely where the business subsequently fails), or
- It was made for “securing the payment of a debt” (unlikely to be under your control as buyer), or
- The seller wasn’t a “trader”. As “trader” is widely defined in the Act, and as the onus of proof here is squarely on the buyer, that’s not going to be easily proved. As we shall see below, you can be a “trader” in property as much as in any other commodity.
As a general rule therefore, it is safest to insist on the sale being properly advertised before you pay out the purchase price, but there are grey areas and pitfalls here so take specific advice. Note also that the Act’s requirements for the timing and manner of advertisement are strict and must be followed to the letter.
As a recent High Court case shows, as a buyer (in this case of a property business) you could lose everything if you lose sight of this very real danger…
An R8m claim and a property transfer (and bond) set aside
- A property owner bought and developed a property firstly into a shopping centre and later into a shopping centre with 11 sectional title units.
- Whilst being sued by a creditor for R8m, the owner sold a section to a buyer and transferred it to him, and a bank registered a bond over the property.
- The creditor obtained judgement against the owner only to find that it had been placed into liquidation. It asked the High Court to set aside the sale on the basis that the sale had not been advertised in terms of section 34 and was therefore void.
- The buyer countered by denying that it was a “trader” as defined in the Insolvency Act. Its core business, it said, was to acquire and then rent out properties, “its business objective was not the buying and selling property per se as its stock in trade”.
- Finding on the facts that the owner was indeed a “trader” when it sold the property to the buyer, the Court set aside the sale, the transfer to the buyer, and the bank’s mortgage bond.
February 20, 2019
“A small debt produces a debtor; a large one, an enemy” (Publilius Syrus, Roman writer)
You are owed money by a debtor, whose “insolvent estate” is “sequestrated” (in the case of an individual or trust) or “liquidated” (in the case of a company or other corporate).
The Master of the High Court appoints a “trustee” (in the case of a sequestration), or a “liquidator” (in the case of a liquidation) to sell all the debtor’s assets and to distribute the sale proceeds between proved creditors.
When you learn of your debtor’s sequestration/liquidation, ensure firstly that the trustee/liquidator knows that you are a creditor so that you receive reports on the financial position of the estate and on progress towards its finalisation.
You will have an opportunity to lodge and prove your claim in the sequestration/liquidation, which you do by completing a formal “claim form” for proof at a meeting of creditors.
The question is – should you prove your claim or shouldn’t you?
Adding insult to injury – contributing to costs
Note: For simplicity we’ll refer below only to “insolvent estate”, “sequestration” and “trustee”, but the principles apply equally to corporate liquidations.
If you don’t prove your claim as above, you won’t receive any dividend and will effectively have to write off your debt entirely.
But the other side of the coin is that by proving your claim you may be exposing yourself to an even worse fate –
- When the costs of sequestration of an insolvent estate exceed the funds in the estate available to pay them, the trustee of the estate recovers a “contribution” from proved creditors to cover those costs.
- In that case you as a proved creditor risk adding insult (having to pay a contribution into the estate) to injury (having to write off your original debt). That’s why, as a creditor, you should be very wary of formally proving your claim against an estate until you are satisfied that no danger of contribution exists.
The special case of the “petitioning creditor”
Now the rub here for the “petitioning creditor” (the creditor who applied for the debtor’s sequestration in the first place) is this – whether or not you formally prove your claim in the estate, you must still contribute to the shortfall.
That’s why, although applying for sequestration can be an excellent way of recovering debt from a recalcitrant debtor, it is essential to consider the danger of contribution before making any such application.
What if you hold security for your claim?
Note that we are only talking here about holding security over a debtor’s asset/s. If you hold outside security – a surety from a company director for example – you can recover that separately, entirely outside the sequestration/liquidation process.
- If you hold some form of security for your claim, like a mortgage bond over the debtor’s property for example, you are a “secured creditor”.
- You need to prove your secured claim to be awarded the net proceeds of the property. In practice the trustee sells the “encumbered” property, pays out of the proceeds all costs directly related to that property – maintaining it, selling it, paying rates and taxes to pass transfer, the trustee’s fees and so on – and then pays out the balance to you as secured creditor in an “encumbered asset account”.
- On the other hand the proceeds of all unencumbered assets fall into the “free residue” account, and if after being paid your secured dividend as above there is still a shortfall on your claim, that shortfall ranks in the free residue as a “concurrent” claim.
- And that’s where your danger comes in – you are now in line to pay a contribution based on the concurrent portion of your claim.
- The good news is that you can largely protect yourself from having to contribute by “relying on the proceeds of your security” in satisfaction of your claim. That means you waive your concurrent claim for any shortfall, but equally by removing your shortfall claim from the free residue account you no longer contribute together with other proved (or petitioning) creditors.
- In some very restricted circumstances even relying on your security won’t protect you from a contribution (for example when no one else has proved claims or other contributors are unable to pay their share), but relying on your security is the best protection you have.
Note that there are grey areas in some of these provisions, so there is no substitute to asking your lawyer for advice on your specific circumstances.
November 21, 2018
“To my mind the best proof of solvency is that a man should pay his debts” (quoted in the judgment below)
If you are owed maintenance you have a variety of enforcement options open to you and should ask your lawyer for advice on which is the best for your particular claim and circumstances.
A recent High Court judgment confirms that one of the weapons in your legal armoury is the sequestration application. And as the defaulter’s desperate attempt to avoid sequestration in this particular case illustrates, even just the threat of sequestration can be a powerful motivator to settle up, regardless of whether your claim is based on maintenance arrears or on any other form of debt.
The reason is that an insolvent has to surrender control of his/her estate to a Trustee, who collects and sells all the insolvent’s assets and divides the proceeds between the creditors. The insolvent can also be ordered to pay over any excess earnings – such as for example monthly salary less reasonable expenses – to the Insolvent Estate. That’s a lot of control to lose over one’s own affairs.
Maintenance arrears and a “no goods” return
In this particular case –
- As part of a divorce settlement, a father was ordered to pay child maintenance, but fell behind and ran up substantial arrears.
- His ex-wife obtained judgment against him in the maintenance court for R45k and the sheriff, with a warrant of execution against property in hand, attached a motor vehicle belonging to the father.
- Unfortunately the sheriff did not actually remove and sell the vehicle at the time and three months later it was gone. The sheriff then rendered a nulla bona (“no goods”) return when the husband claimed to have no money or attachable assets.
- The mother then applied for the sequestration of the father’s estate, and the father raised two main defences –
“I’m not actually insolvent”
To sequestrate someone’s estate you have to prove either actual insolvency (not always easy to do) or an “act of insolvency”. And although the sheriff’s nulla bona return in this matter qualified as an act of insolvency, the husband still insisted that he was actually solvent. He didn’t deny owing the R45k (plus by that stage another R183k) but said that he would make payment once he received tax refunds from SARS in the future.
The Court dismissed this argument, quoting from a 1907 judgment: “Speaking for myself, I always look with great suspicion upon, and examine very narrowly, the position of a debtor who says, ‘I am sorry that I cannot pay my creditor, but my assets far exceed my liabilities’. To my mind the best proof of solvency is that a man should pay his debts; and therefore I always examine in a critical spirit the case of a man who does not pay what he owes” (our emphasis).
It was just not good enough, said the Court, for the father to say that he would eventually pay.
“Sequestration won’t be to the advantage of my creditors”
To get a sequestration order you must also prove that “there is reason to believe that it will be to the advantage of creditors of the debtor if his estate is sequestrated”.
The husband’s contention here was that he was under debt review in terms of the National Credit Act, and was making payments to his creditors. The flaw in this argument, said the Court, was that only listed creditors were being paid under the debt review arrangement. Nothing at all had been paid towards maintenance for almost four years, and the arrears were increasing at a rate of some R7k every month.
In those circumstances the Court was satisfied that sequestration would indeed be to the advantage of the husband’s creditors.
The Court’s discretion
Even after you have proved that you have a “liquidated” (agreed or easily-established amount) claim of at least R100, plus insolvency and advantage to creditors as above, the court can still refuse to order sequestration. In this regard it has a wide discretion “to be exercised judicially taking into account all the facts as well as the general history and circumstances of the case”.
Finding there to be “no reasons or circumstances to disentitle her of this order”, the Court held for the mother and sequestrated the defaulting husband’s estate.