When Liquidation is Inevitable: A Bad Faith Business Rescue Application Backfires

Categories

Business Rescue, Insolvency / Liquidation

When Liquidation is Inevitable: A Bad Faith Business Rescue Application Backfires

by | Sep 25, 2025

“If you’re flogging a dead horse, make sure you’re not riding it.” (Josh Stern)

Creditors and company directors alike need to know how best to deal with a company in financial distress. Both should learn to recognise the difference between an enterprise that has failed beyond resuscitation, and one that, given a chance, can be returned to solvency and success. 

With that in mind, the law provides you with two main options:

  • Liquidation: Liquidation is the winding up of a company that cannot pay its debts. A liquidator is appointed to sell all the assets and to distribute the proceeds to creditors in their order of legal preference. When the business is hopelessly insolvent and has no reasonable chance of recovery, it ensures an orderly closure and fair distribution to creditors. There’s seldom a good outcome for creditors, especially “concurrent creditors” (holding no security or preference) who can generally consider themselves lucky to recover anything more than a few cents in the rand on their claims. Moreover, at the end of the winding-up, the company ceases to exist and is lost to all role-players — employees, creditors, suppliers, the taxman and indeed the economy as a whole. 
  • Business rescue: This process is designed to rehabilitate distressed companies by protecting them from attack by creditors while a business rescue practitioner (BRP) develops and implements a plan to restructure debts and operations. The idea is to allow the company to continue trading, save as many jobs as possible, and provide a better return to creditors than liquidation would. Critically, however, there must be a realistic prospect of turning the business around and saving the company. If there isn’t, as we shall see below, applying for business rescue can land the applicants in some very hot water. 
The dodging debtor and the creditor’s lament

There’s nothing worse for a creditor: after chasing a recalcitrant debtor from pillar to post and finally cornering them, you’re stymied at the last hurdle by the director’s last-ditch application for business rescue. 

“Tough”, the director tells you. “That’s the end of your hunt for payment.” When your blood pressure has dropped a bit, you take legal advice — can this really be correct?

In most cases, yes, you are stuck with waiting while a BRP is appointed and a rescue plan formulated and put to you and other role players for consideration. If the application is genuine, you might even recover something worthwhile. At best you could also retain a long-term customer.

But if this is just another debt-dodging or delaying exercise, our courts will come to your rescue. A recent High Court decision not only set aside business rescue proceedings launched in bad faith but also penalised those responsible by hitting them in their own pockets — hard. 

A bad faith application backfires, badly

A property-owning company, in a settlement agreement made an order of court, agreed to a creditor selling its property and keeping the proceeds in full and final settlement of its claim. An auction sale was arranged by the creditor, but on the eve of the sale the director of the property company commenced business rescue proceedings and a BRP was appointed. 

The BRP sold the property for R3.4m (to the same buyer who’d offered R3.25m at the auction) and prepared a business rescue plan which was duly adopted. The real fly in the ointment was presumably the fact that the plan included remuneration of over R2.2m for the BRP — a sum grossly disproportionate, said the creditor, to the limited scope of her duties.

Having none of that, the creditor applied to the High Court to set aside the business rescue proceedings. The Court was quick to agree to this request, commenting that the company had no operations, income, or employees. There was no viable business to rescue. 

More specifically (emphasis supplied): “The business rescue proceedings were accordingly initiated in bad faith, amounting to an abuse of process … the BRP was remunerated extensively without a proper accounting … no reasonable prospect of rescue existed, procedural requirements were ignored, and it is just and equitable to set the resolution aside.”

Punitive costs and a R2.2m fee down the tubes 

No wonder, then, that the Court expressed its displeasure at the actions of both the director and the BRP by ordering them to personally pay all costs (jointly with the company itself, for what that’s worth) on the punitive attorney and client scale (much higher and more severe than the normal costs scale). The BRP, in particular, must be mourning the additional loss of her R2.2m fee. 

The bottom line

As a creditor, don’t take it lying down if a company tries to dodge or delay paying you through a misuse of the business rescue procedure.

As a director or BRP, be careful never to be seen to abuse the process. It’s not a “get out of jail free” card to delay liquidation or to relieve creditor pressure. As the Supreme Court of Appeal has put it: “Business rescue proceedings are aimed at restoring a company to solvency, and are not to be abused by a company with no prospects of being rescued but mainly to avoid a winding-up or to obtain some respite from creditors.” 

The rules and process relating to business rescue and liquidation can be complex, but we’re here to help you navigate them if needed. 

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Our Most Recent Articles

Would you like to save time? Consider subscribing to our monthly newsletter here.

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

Renegotiating After You’ve Signed: The Email That Ended a Property Sale

After their bond was withdrawn, the buyers were given time to arrange new finance. Instead, one of them emailed the conveyancer saying they would only apply for another bond after the seller repaired an alleged defect or agreed to reduce the price. The seller understood this to mean that the buyers would not proceed on the terms they had already accepted. She cancelled the sale, and the High Court agreed that she was entitled to do so. The buyers lost the sale and the money already paid and faced further financial consequences.

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

Was it Even His Signature? How to Overturn a Fraudulent Will

It’s unfortunately all too common a tale. Out of the blue, an older person, rendered vulnerable by age or illness, acquires a new “friend”. Before anyone in the family realises what’s going on, their loved one has died, and the fraudster claims to be sole heir in terms of a last-minute will. No surprise then that our courts must often determine whether a deceased person’s last will was tainted by incapacity, undue influence, fraud, or even forgery. The sad tale of a 90-year-old man who left behind two conflicting wills is a good example of how our courts approach these situations.

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Employ a Foreign National? What You Must Check Now, and What Could Change

Under the current law, it is already illegal to employ someone who is not legally entitled to work in South Africa. This applies to businesses and to households employing foreign domestic workers, nannies or gardeners. A new Bill proposes additional duties and higher penalties for employers, but these changes are not yet law. Employers should therefore comply with the existing law and remain alert to the proposed changes.