Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Crisp and Others v Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (1939/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 737 (22 November 2017)
Leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the scheme-of-arrangement orders remained valid until set aside and were not shown to be fraudulently obtained.
Freidlein Company (Pty) Ltd v Simaan and Others (2009/45807) [2012] ZAGPJHC 16 (8 February 2012)
The court held that upon the sanctioning and implementation of a compromise and scheme of arrangement under section 311 of the Companies Act, in terms of which creditors are deemed to have ceded their claims against the company to the proposer, any rights they might have had against representatives of the company under section 424(1) are extinguished. The existence of debts or liabilities is a prerequisite for the operation of section 424(1), and once these are extinguished by the agreement of creditors and the sanction of the court, no further remedy under section 424(1) is available. The co…
Source excerpt
Verimark Holdings Limited v Brait Specialised Trustees (Pty) Limited NO and Others (2009/22928) [2009] ZAGPJHC 45 (28 August 2009)
The court held that only the minority shareholders to whom a scheme of arrangement offer was made could vote. The scheme was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Morris NO v Airomatic (Pty) Ltd. t/a Barlows Airconditioning Company (327/88) [1989] ZASCA 163 (29 November 1989)
The court held that the scheme of arrangement sanctioned under section 311 of the Companies Act did not confer on the receiver the power to set aside transactions under section 29 of the Insolvency Act, as such powers are reserved for a liquidator in the context of a winding-up. The scheme binds creditors only in respect of claims existing at the date of liquidation, not in respect of claims satisfied prior to liquidation. The respondent was a creditor only for the balance of the purchase price at the relevant date, and the scheme did not create new obligations regarding goods returned prior…
Source excerpt
Explore more
