LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Creditor Voting Rights During Business Rescue in Terms of the South African Companies Act 71 Of 2008

January 2026Business ContinuityBanking & Finance

Abstract

Chapter 6 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the “Companies Act”) deals with a process referred to under South African law as “business rescue”, aimed at the rehabilitation of financially distressed companies. An important question in relation to the business rescue process is whether only pre-commencement creditors have voting rights during business rescue, or do both pre-commencement creditors and post-commencement creditors have voting rights? The relevant provisions of the Companies Act are not clear. On 2 October 2023, the High Court of South Africa handed down a judgment, finding that only pre-commencement creditors have voting rights on a business rescue plan. The author of this paper submits a specific explanation in relation to the rationale for this conclusion by the High Court. The High Court judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in a judgment handed down on 29 January 2025, finding that both pre-commencement creditors and post-commencement creditors are entitled to vote on a business rescue plan. Subsequently, an application was lodged for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Currently uncertainty exists in relation to the subject matter. This paper deals with the subject matter in more detail and proposes remediating steps to establish clarity.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Author

Stef du Plessis

Specialist In-house Legal Counsel, Corporate and Investment Banking, a division of The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited, South Africa

Related Papers

Regulating AI in the UK: A Patchwork, a Plan, and What In-House Counsel Should Do About Both
The United Kingdom does not have an AI law. It has no AI regulator. It has no single, binding set of rules governing how artificial intelligence is developed, deployed or...Read more
Portrait image of Winona Chan
Winona Chan
Legal Counsel, Moneybox, UK
Financing the Finish Line: How Cross-Border Investor Capital Can Close Project Funding Gaps and What the New Era of Regulatory Rigor Demands of Counsel
Every project sponsor knows the moment. The land is assembled, the senior lender is committed, the equity is largely spoken for. And yet a gap remains. It may be ten...Read more
Portrait image of Mine Ekim
Mine Ekim
Managing Director, Legal & Head of Investor Experience, Civitas Capital Group, USA
Corporate Conglomerates: The Rise and Demise (?) of ESG and DEI in Corporate America
The terms ESG and DEI are both catch words for positive social change and, more recently, highly controversial terms; in each case they can impact the financial condition of corporations....Read more
Portrait image of Bruce Ortwine
Bruce Ortwine
External Advisor, Global Legal and Compliance, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group, Inc.; Adjunct Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, n/a, USA
The UK’s Copyright and AI Report: What In-House Counsel Need to Know (and Do) Now
In March 2026, the UK government published its long-awaited report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The report runs to over 120 pages. It covers technical infrastructure, international comparisons, licensing markets,...Read more
Portrait image of Winona Chan
Winona Chan
Legal Counsel, Moneybox, UK