Are shareholders exclusive beneficiaries of fiduciary obligations in South Africa? The role of fiduciary obligations in the 21st Century

Are shareholders exclusive beneficiaries of fiduciary obligations in South Africa? The role of fiduciary obligations in the 21st Century

Authors Brian Peter Lee Jennings

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Director at ENSafrica
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 2, 2015, p. 54 – 81

Abstract

This paper investigates and evaluates the existing South African common law position of to whom directors owe their duties, in light of the transformative requirements of the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, the South African legal position largely mirrors the position found within Anglo-American jurisdictions, on which our company law is based. But whether this is justified, or warranted, in a post-constitutional South Africa, which values equality, dignity and freedom as being paramount, is the subject of this paper. This paper will attempt to address the question whether South Africa’s Constitution, and the recently promulgated 2008 Companies Act, appropriately balances the competing ideological tensions found within South African society. In undertaking this balancing act, one will consider whether the Companies Act gives effect to the most appropriate ideology in the most appropriate circumstances, to give effect to the constitutional values of dignity, equality and freedom. The hypothesis at the forefront of this paper is that the legal interpretation of the beneficiary of the duties owed by directors in South Africa must be revisited in a post-constitutional environment, in the very least. That revisiting must be dependent on the company to whom the rule is being applied, and its position in society. This will, in turn, determine the most appropriate theory (from a legal, socio-economic and philosophical point of view) to apply to determine to whom such company’s directors owe their duties.

Punishing foreign and local companies (corporations) for bribery in Mauritius: The need to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act

Punishing foreign and local companies (corporations) for bribery in Mauritius: The need to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act

Authors Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 2, 2015, p. 42 – 53

Abstract

The 2002 Mauritian Prevention of Corruption Act [fn1] (POCA or the Act) provides for different offences. Section 5 of POCA provides for the offence of bribery and states that ‘any person guilty shall be liable to penal servitude’. This means that POCA does not provide an appropriate sentence for juristic persons because juristic persons cannot be sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude. This is what one of the courts in Mauritius found when it convicted two foreign companies of bribery but could not sentence them to prison. In this article the author argues that Mauritian legislators should amend POCA to provide for sentences that may be imposed on companies convicted of offences under the Act. The author also argues that, in addition to prosecution, Mauritius may find it useful to adopt the deferred prosecution agreements approach as one of the ways to ensure that companies are deterred from committing corruption and also to ensure that they put effective measures in place to combat corruption. footnote 1: Prevention of Corruption Act 5 of 2002, proclaimed by Proc 18 of 2002 wef 1 April 2002.

The wolf in sheep’s clothing – when debtor-friendly is creditor-friendly: South Africa’s business rescue and alternatives learned from the United States’ Chapter 11

The wolf in sheep’s clothing – when debtor-friendly is creditor-friendly: South Africa’s business rescue and alternatives learned from the United States’ Chapter 11

Authors Richard Bradstreet, Marius Pretorius, Philip Mindlin

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law, University of Cape Town; Professor of Business Strategy, University of Pretoria; Partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 2, 2015, p. 1 – 41

Abstract

The American Chapter 11 has inspired the reform of many legal systems globally to embrace the notion of reorganisation rather than administration. The recent corporate law reform in South Africa is an example of such an attempt to de-emphasise the right of creditors to liquidate a company, and develop a culture of reorganisation. The new South African procedure, called ‘business rescue’, enables a company to restructure its affairs more informally and with less judicial oversight than was previously possible. An independent third party then develops a formal plan to rescue the company, which must be approved by the body of creditors, while a moratorium prevents them from enforcing their existing claims. The authors analyse the problems that have arisen in business rescues in practice during the first four years of the procedure’s existence and, drawing from the experience of the United States, propose possible solutions to the shortfalls of business rescue that may also assist in developing a true reorganisation culture in South Africa.

Notes: Rethinking the definition of the ‘business of banking’ in South Africa against the backdrop of Registrar of Banks v Net Income Solutions [2013] ZAWCHC 92

Notes: Rethinking the definition of the ‘business of banking’ in South Africa against the backdrop of Registrar of Banks v Net Income Solutions [2013] ZAWCHC 92

Authors H Kawadza

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 1, 2015, p. 105 – 115

Abstract

The recent financial crisis has amplified calls for the effective regulation of banks. However, an appreciation of bank regulation necessitates an understanding of what a bank is. It is only when that has been accomplished that resources can be channelled towards the regulatory and supervisory objective of those institutions. The major challenge, however, has been the growing difficulty associated with defining what the business of banking is. Statutory definitions have been too restrictive and have confined banks to certain activities. Much as that can be justified as necessary to prevent banks from engaging in other activities, that constraint has had the potential of exposing banks to, among other disadvantages, unfair competition especially given that the activities which have traditionally been the preserve of banks are now being undertaken by non-banking institutions.

Notes: The meaning of artificial price: Lessons from Australian case Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM [2013] HCA 30

Notes: The meaning of artificial price: Lessons from Australian case Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM [2013] HCA 30

Authors Tshegofatso Kgarabjang

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Lecturer, School of Law, University of South Africa
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 1, 2015, p. 93 – 104

Abstract

In recent times, South Africa and other jurisdictions with which it shares corporate commercial legal traditions have upped the tempo on tightening corporate commercial law policy and regulation. One of the ways in which this is done is by introducing rules to regulate conduct of players within the capital financial markets. In South Africa, this is evidenced by the enactment of the Financial Markets Act 19 of 2012. Central to the regulation of financial markets is the prohibition of certain trading practices as clearly set out in s 80 of the Act. One of such prohibited trading practices is the direct or indirect use of or participation in any practice which has created or is likely to have the effect of creating an artificial price for the relevant securities of the company concerned. Since there is no single case in South Africa dealing extensively with the conduct of creating an artificial price for the securities of a company, lessons can be derived from jurisdictions like Australia, which shares corporate commercial legal traditions with South Africa.

The use of American Depositary Receipts (ADRS) by South African public companies

The use of American Depositary Receipts (ADRS) by South African public companies

Authors Zama Chonco

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Legal Counsel, Corporate and Investment Banking, Barclays Africa Group Limited
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, The, Volume 1 Issue 1, 2015, p. 63 – 92

Abstract

The process of globalisation, described as ‘the growing interdependence of countries resulting from the increasing integration of trade, finance, people and ideas in one global market place’, [fn1] has been a catalyst for economic growth in many developing countries such as China, Hong Kong and South Africa, by encouraging international trade as well as cross-border investment. A popular mechanism utilised to promote crossborder investment is the direct listing of a public company’s shares on more than one exchange. [fn2] Cross-listing enables a South African public company to issue the same class of its shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the JSE) as well as on a foreign exchange; with the set of shares trading on the JSE being traded in South African rand and the shares trading on the foreign exchange being traded in the currency of that foreign exchange. [fn3] There are many exchanges that facilitate that. [fn4] The process of trading in a company’s securities either in the over-the-counter (OTC) market or on an exchange through an American Depositary Receipt programme (ADR programme) has been gaining popularity with emerging economies since the early 1990s and is generally considered the most popular type of crosslisted security to date. [fn5] South Africa is not an exception to this global trend. In 1983 only three South African public companies had instituted ADR programmes, [fn6] whereas, as of 3 December 2013, as many as 35 of the JSE ‘Top 40’ listed companies have instituted ADR programmes, [fn7] with 24 companies instituting their ADR programmes in 2013 alone. [fn8] footnote 1: Beyond Economic Growth (ch 12 Globalization and International Trade) available at http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_12.pdf, accessed on 18 February 2014. footnote 2: Kathleen van der Linde ‘Aspects of the cross-listing of securities’ (2009) 21 SA Merc LJ 631. footnote 3: Yuliya Guseva ‘Cross listings and the new world of international capital: Another look at the efficiency and extraterritoriality of securities law’ (2013) 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law 411. footnote 4: Available at http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eddk45iglh/bmf-bovespa-brazil/, accessed on 25 April 2014. footnote 5: Guseva op cit note 3 at 424. footnote 6: Bank of New York Mellon: Depositary Receipt available at http://www.adrbnymellon.com/dr_directory.jsp, accessed on 25 April 2014. footnote 7: ‘Corporate news: Clover launches ADR programme in US’ available at http://finweek.com/2013/12/03/corporate-news-clover-launches-adr-programme-in-us/, accessed on 25 April 2014. footnote 8: Op cit note 6.