A Win for Business Rescue and Collaboration: The Reiscor Two Judgment Sets a Precedent
A Win for Business Rescue and Collaboration: The Reiscor Two Judgment Sets a Precedent
The business rescue regime has proven to be one of the most significant developments in South Africa’s commercial landscape over the last decade. Adopted into the new Companies Act more than 13 years ago, the process has given distressed companies a fighting chance for recovery. However, despite the legislature’s efforts to establish a clear legal framework, our courts have frequently been called upon to provide crucial clarity on the rights and obligations of all affected parties, writes Johann Krynauw, Manager at BDO Business Restructuring.
The recent judgment handed down by the Johannesburg High Court in the matter of Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd t/a Bootleggers (In Business Rescue) v Anheuser-Busch Inbev Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others; Distell Ltd v Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd t/a Bootleggers and Others marks a significant milestone for the business rescue profession. The court’s decision to set aside the major creditors' vote against the proposed business rescue plan not only upholds the integrity of the process but also reinforces the principle that collaboration is at the heart of business rescue.
Let’s explore why.
The case’s applicant, Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd, owned a liquor trading business and had entered into voluntary business rescue in May 2021. The crux of the judgment centred around an inappropriate vote cast by the business’ major creditors against the business rescue plan, which had been designed to secure the best possible outcome for all parties involved. In this case, the business rescue practitioners (BRPs) had formulated a plan that projected a better return for creditors than a liquidation would have offered. The plan included the sale of the company's assets as a going concern, which was expected to benefit all creditors.
However, just days before the vote on the plan, the major creditors requested further access to company documents and records for a due diligence exercise—an action that came too late in the process. When their request for a postponement of the vote was denied, the creditors, using their voting majority, opted to reject the plan without making any substantive amendments or raising their concerns during the meeting.
The court ultimately ruled that this vote was inappropriate, underscoring the need for creditors to actively engage in the business rescue process, rather than using their position to pursue individual interests at the expense of a collaborative outcome.
The Importance of Constructive Engagement
At the heart of this ruling is the expectation that creditors, who are among the most critical stakeholders in any business rescue, must actively participate in the process. The court highlighted that the business rescue plan is a document meant for businesspeople—not a legal pleading—and that creditors have a responsibility to propose amendments or raise concerns in good faith.
In this case, the creditors' failure to engage constructively with the BRPs, despite opportunities to do so, was deemed unacceptable. The BRPs had even gone so far as to offer amendments to the plan and to allow for further investigations into the company’s affairs. Yet, the creditors declined to make use of these opportunities and instead chose to obstruct the process.
This judgment sends a strong message to creditors: business rescue is not about waiting until the last minute to wield power but rather about engaging with the BRPs and other stakeholders to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. The court’s decision reinforces the notion that the business rescue regime is a collaborative effort—one where creditors are expected to participate meaningfully, not just from a position of authority, but from a place of dialogue and compromise.
Confidential Information and Creditor Rights
Another significant point in the judgment was the court’s ruling on creditors' access to confidential information during business rescue proceedings. The creditors in this case had argued that they lacked sufficient information to make an informed decision about the plan. The court, however, clarified that business rescue does not entitle creditors to confidential information they would not have had access to prior to the company entering business rescue. The BRPs had made reasonable efforts to provide transparency, including offering a controlled mechanism for further investigation, but this offer was refused by the creditors.
This decision will likely have broader implications for future business rescue proceedings, ensuring that while creditors’ rights are protected, these rights do not extend beyond what is fair and reasonable within the framework of business rescue.
Clarifying Section 34 of the Insolvency Act
Additionally, the court clarified the applicability of section 34 of the Insolvency Act, which requires public notice of a business transfer by a trader. In this case, the court ruled that section 34 does not apply in the context of business rescue, as creditors are already notified and have the power to approve or reject the sale of the business. This provides much-needed certainty for BRPs and creditors alike in future cases.
A Victory for Fairness and Collaboration
The Reiscor Two judgment represents a pivotal win for the business rescue profession. By setting aside the creditors' inappropriate vote and upholding the principle of collaboration in this judgement, the court has reinforced the core tenets of business rescue—fairness, transparency, and engagement.
As a business rescue practitioner, I’m encouraged by this outcome. It affirms that our courts are committed to ensuring that business rescue continues to serve its intended purpose: to provide distressed companies with the best possible chance of survival through a fair, collaborative process that benefits all stakeholders.
This ruling will undoubtedly strengthen the business rescue regime in South Africa, providing much-needed clarity for practitioners, creditors, and companies alike. And as we move forward, it’s my hope that this precedent will encourage all parties to approach business rescue with the spirit of cooperation that it was designed to foster.
The recent judgment handed down by the Johannesburg High Court in the matter of Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd t/a Bootleggers (In Business Rescue) v Anheuser-Busch Inbev Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others; Distell Ltd v Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd t/a Bootleggers and Others marks a significant milestone for the business rescue profession. The court’s decision to set aside the major creditors' vote against the proposed business rescue plan not only upholds the integrity of the process but also reinforces the principle that collaboration is at the heart of business rescue.
Let’s explore why.
The case’s applicant, Reiscor Two (Pty) Ltd, owned a liquor trading business and had entered into voluntary business rescue in May 2021. The crux of the judgment centred around an inappropriate vote cast by the business’ major creditors against the business rescue plan, which had been designed to secure the best possible outcome for all parties involved. In this case, the business rescue practitioners (BRPs) had formulated a plan that projected a better return for creditors than a liquidation would have offered. The plan included the sale of the company's assets as a going concern, which was expected to benefit all creditors.
However, just days before the vote on the plan, the major creditors requested further access to company documents and records for a due diligence exercise—an action that came too late in the process. When their request for a postponement of the vote was denied, the creditors, using their voting majority, opted to reject the plan without making any substantive amendments or raising their concerns during the meeting.
The court ultimately ruled that this vote was inappropriate, underscoring the need for creditors to actively engage in the business rescue process, rather than using their position to pursue individual interests at the expense of a collaborative outcome.
The Importance of Constructive Engagement
At the heart of this ruling is the expectation that creditors, who are among the most critical stakeholders in any business rescue, must actively participate in the process. The court highlighted that the business rescue plan is a document meant for businesspeople—not a legal pleading—and that creditors have a responsibility to propose amendments or raise concerns in good faith.
In this case, the creditors' failure to engage constructively with the BRPs, despite opportunities to do so, was deemed unacceptable. The BRPs had even gone so far as to offer amendments to the plan and to allow for further investigations into the company’s affairs. Yet, the creditors declined to make use of these opportunities and instead chose to obstruct the process.
This judgment sends a strong message to creditors: business rescue is not about waiting until the last minute to wield power but rather about engaging with the BRPs and other stakeholders to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. The court’s decision reinforces the notion that the business rescue regime is a collaborative effort—one where creditors are expected to participate meaningfully, not just from a position of authority, but from a place of dialogue and compromise.
Confidential Information and Creditor Rights
Another significant point in the judgment was the court’s ruling on creditors' access to confidential information during business rescue proceedings. The creditors in this case had argued that they lacked sufficient information to make an informed decision about the plan. The court, however, clarified that business rescue does not entitle creditors to confidential information they would not have had access to prior to the company entering business rescue. The BRPs had made reasonable efforts to provide transparency, including offering a controlled mechanism for further investigation, but this offer was refused by the creditors.
This decision will likely have broader implications for future business rescue proceedings, ensuring that while creditors’ rights are protected, these rights do not extend beyond what is fair and reasonable within the framework of business rescue.
Clarifying Section 34 of the Insolvency Act
Additionally, the court clarified the applicability of section 34 of the Insolvency Act, which requires public notice of a business transfer by a trader. In this case, the court ruled that section 34 does not apply in the context of business rescue, as creditors are already notified and have the power to approve or reject the sale of the business. This provides much-needed certainty for BRPs and creditors alike in future cases.
A Victory for Fairness and Collaboration
The Reiscor Two judgment represents a pivotal win for the business rescue profession. By setting aside the creditors' inappropriate vote and upholding the principle of collaboration in this judgement, the court has reinforced the core tenets of business rescue—fairness, transparency, and engagement.
As a business rescue practitioner, I’m encouraged by this outcome. It affirms that our courts are committed to ensuring that business rescue continues to serve its intended purpose: to provide distressed companies with the best possible chance of survival through a fair, collaborative process that benefits all stakeholders.
This ruling will undoubtedly strengthen the business rescue regime in South Africa, providing much-needed clarity for practitioners, creditors, and companies alike. And as we move forward, it’s my hope that this precedent will encourage all parties to approach business rescue with the spirit of cooperation that it was designed to foster.