Another important issue to consider is the impact of a legal termination of a contract on real estate owned by the creditor but held by the company as part of the company`s rescue, in accordance with a lease or for other purposes. It would appear that, in LA Sport (para. 52), the bank entirely bank was able to find that, since the cancellation was valid, the company was then illegally owned by the land in the context of the rescue of the company and that there would therefore be no prospect of success in rescuing the company. On this point, the General Court did not take a final decision or clarify the question, and there therefore remain doubts as to whether a legal erasure automatically leads to the illegal possession of the immovable property by the undertaking during the rescue of the undertaking. The moratorium does not prevent a landlord (owner) from terminating a rental agreement with his tenant (tenant) – the termination of a contract does not amount to an enforcement action by the landlord against his tenant. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Cloete Murray v. FirstRand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank. In addition, the termination of a contract is a legal act – legal acts are not postponed by the moratorium in s133, so such termination would be valid. In the case of Stamfordhill CC v Velvet Star Entertainment CC, the court stated: “This would not allow the company`s rescue scepticist to remain in the occupation of the land, so that the defendant can continue the business and not fulfil his obligation to pay the rent. It had to honour its obligations under the contract concluded before the opening of the rescue proceedings for the undertaking and, as it had not done so, the applicant had the right to terminate the contract` (emphasis added only). Home > Bank > moratorium on business rescue: what does it cover? Can a creditor terminate an agreement with a company rescue company and what is the consequence if a company rescue palliator suspends a contract before termination? Skyline has been placed under the bailout of the companies and has already been late in the monthly payments to be paid to Wesbank as part of the agreement. Wesbank then sent a termination letter to Skyline for non-payment of the monthly payments and indicated that it would repossess the goods; it would evaluate and sell the same thing; and to credit the proceeds to the corresponding accounts and claim damages. The company`s rescue programmer, appointed within the meaning of the procedure supervision law, agreed to the withdrawal and sale of the goods.
Interpretation of section 133(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 – principle of the moratorium in the context of the rescue of the company redefined The court concluded that the termination by wesbank of the contract concluded before the opening of a company rescue procedure does not constitute an “implementing measure” within the meaning of section 133(1) of the Companies Act. Therefore, neither the agreement of the BRP nor the leave of the court was necessary to obtain the legal annulment of the MISA. My interpretation of the provisions of the act is such that once a BRP issues a notice of suspension to a creditor, it follows that the company does not breach any obligation to the creditor in relation to rescuing the company before the start. As a result, the creditor does not have the right to terminate the contract or take measures to prevent the company from occupying the property in its possession in the rescue of the company. Under section 133(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act), no legal proceedings, including enforcement measures, may be initiated or prosecuted by a court, including enforcement measures, during the process of rescuing companies. . . .