Company / Corporate / Compliance Archives

Directors: Here’s How to Avoid Being Sued for Company Debts

January 2025 | Company / Corporate / Compliance

“To be prepared is half the victory.” (Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quixote)

Perhaps you’re a director losing sleep over the risk of losing everything if creditors sue you personally for your company’s debts because you’re asset-rich, and they can’t squeeze anything out of the company. Or maybe you worry about the company itself suing you for losses it suffers because of something you have or haven’t done.
There can be big money involved, as we shall see from the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) case below, so those are risks well worth keeping a close eye on. Preparation really is key here.

The general rule

Our law has long accepted that a company has a legal personality separate from its directors and shareholders, trading in its own name and holding its own assets and liabilities. So, the good news is that, as a general rule, directors are not personally liable for their company’s debts unless:

They sign personal sureties for those debts, or
They breach their legal duties as directors.

The not-so-good news is that those duties are many and onerous. In a nutshell, as a director, you must always perform your duties with integrity, care and diligence, without being reckless or fraudulent, without breaching your duty to act in good faith, and in the best interests of the company.

A case in point – directors sued personally for R41m

A goods importer sued the directors of a clearing and forwarding agent in their personal capacities for R41.4m. This after the agent had taken money from the importer to pay the VAT it owed, but had only paid part of that sum over to SARS. That left the importer having to pay SARS the shortfall plus interest and penalties.

On highly technical grounds (to do with the wording of various sections of the Companies Act), the importer’s claim was thrown out of court by firstly the High Court, and then by the SCA on appeal.

The importer now has an opportunity to amend its papers and to have another go at the directors personally, so this saga may not be over quite yet. But what’s important on a practical level is that the judgments in this case have established clearly that:

The “separate personality” of a company is still recognised, and directors cannot be automatically held liable for the company’s debts. Grounds for personal liability must be proved.
An attack can come from anywhere – creditors, employees, other stakeholders, and even the company itself can hold directors liable for company losses arising from any breach of their fiduciary duties towards it.
A creditor must show which specific section or sections of the Act the director breached. It was the importer’s inability to identify such a section in its papers that led to its case falling at the first hurdle. But as we saw above, it now has a third crack at the whip and the warning to directors remains – comply with the Act’s many requirements, or face litigation.
Taking another tack, a creditor could use the “abuse of separate personality” angle to sue a director. That would involve proving that the director abused the company’s separate personality sufficiently for a court to hold that it is not a separate “juristic person” for the purpose of a particular claim. In other words, the director would be regarded as the debtor for that debt.

Be prepared, and protect yourself from liability

Staying on the right side of the law isn’t complicated, but you do need to know what’s required of you. Here are some tips:

Understand your duties: Familiarise yourself with your fiduciary duties to the company on the one hand and its and your legal obligations to other stakeholders on the other.
Maintain proper records and books of account: Ensure financial records are always up-to-date and accurate. Ignorance of your company’s financial health is not a defence.
Monitor compliance and financial controls: Check that financial controls are in place and adhered to, make sure that SARS returns and payments are made on time, and generally stay on top of your financial game.
Don’t ignore warning signs: If your company is struggling financially, ask us for advice early. Avoid delaying tough decisions.
Open communication: Transparency with all stakeholders can save you from accusations of deceit and fraud.

If you’re ever unsure about your legal obligations or find yourself in a sticky situation, we’re here to help you understand your duties, assess risks, and protect yourself personally while you focus on growing your company and its profitability.

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.

Now Creditors Can Apply for Directors to be Declared Delinquent – Why is That Important?

January 2024 | Company / Corporate / Compliance, Debt Recovery

“He who is quick to borrow is slow to pay” (Old proverb)

A recent High Court decision means that, for the first time, creditors of debtor companies are specifically cleared to apply for the company’s directors to be declared “delinquent” in certain circumstances. And that has significant implications for both directors and creditors.

For directors – major long-term career risks

Company directors need to manage a whole range of duties, responsibilities and risks, including being declared “delinquent” in terms of the Companies Act. For more serious categories of misconduct a director risks disqualification from holding any directorship or senior management position for a period ranging from 7 years to a lifetime.

A wide range of less serious categories of misconduct can lead to “probation” orders, with possible disqualification for up to 5 years, supervision by a mentor, remedial education, community service and payment of compensation.

The fact that creditors can now make delinquency applications adds a new level of director risk, the reality being that of all the stakeholders out for blood after a corporate failure, unpaid creditors may well be the fiercest. Your best defence against any personal attack is to always be aware of, and to scrupulously comply with, all your many fiduciary duties.

For creditors – a new door opens

As a creditor on the other hand, your chances of recovering a company debt from a director personally will depend on a range of factors – whether you hold personal suretyships, whether you can prove personal liability for breach of statutory duties and so on (this is a complex topic – specific legal advice is essential).

Now another door has opened to you, and although as we shall see below you will have to convince the court that you are acting in the public interest, it will certainly make directors think twice about defrauding you or exposing you (and creditors and the public generally) to loss through corporate misconduct.

The case in question stems from the creditors of a company in liquidation failing to recover their debt from it, and consequently taking action against the directors in their personal capacities for over R370m.
They also asked the High Court to declare the directors delinquent, and one of the directors objected on the basis that creditors have no power to bring such an application. Indeed, the Companies Act gives this right only to a specific list of stakeholders – namely a shareholder, director, company director, secretary or prescribed officer, registered trade union, employee representative, Takeover Regulation Panel, some organs of state and the CIPC (Companies and Intellectual Property Commission).
The Court however agreed with the creditors that they could apply under another provision of the Companies Act which allows anyone to apply “acting in the public interest, with leave of the court”. On the facts of this particular matter, the creditors were cleared to proceed under that provision.
In reaching this decision, the Court took account of the (as yet unproven) serious allegations levelled against the directors – extreme breaches of fiduciary duty over a long period of time and involving substantial amounts of money, “a full panoply of misdemeanours” including gross abuse of position and gross negligence, the large number of directorships held by the directors, the (indirect) involvement of public entities – the list goes on.
Importantly, the Court rejected the director’s argument that “the danger of giving the creditor such standing was that it could use the threat of a delinquency declaration to squeeze the proverbial few extra bob out of the directors.” Every case, said the Court, must be decided on its own facts, and the fact that creditors are suing directors personally does not automatically mean that they are acting cynically and opportunistically.
But clearly, to succeed you will have to prove that you are acting in the public interest and not just in your own interest as a creditor. It will help to be able to argue, as the creditors in this case did, that “the general public and creditors deserve and require to be protected in their dealings, engagements and transactions with the companies and close corporations of which the defendants are respectively directors and/or members; and … the relief will protect the public from the defendants repeating or replicating their delinquent conduct in other entities.”

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 your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Why You Need a Shareholders’ Agreement, and How to Structure It

March 2023 | Company / Corporate / Compliance

Whether you are forming a new company or buying shares in an existing one, a formal shareholders’ agreement, tailored to suit your particular situation and needs, is essential.

What is a shareholders’ agreement?

It’s a contract between shareholders outlining the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of each shareholder, it provides a framework for the governance of the company, and it ensures a clear understanding between the shareholders about its management, operation and control. It’s not a legal requirement, but not having one is a recipe for uncertainty and dispute.

Which brings us to…

Why you need one

Here are some of the reasons why it’s a “must-have” and not a “nice-to-have” –

The Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) is not enough: Every company must have a memorandum of incorporation (MOI) setting out amongst other things the “rights, duties and responsibilities of shareholders, directors and others within and in relation to a company” but you should always complement its provisions to suit your particular needs and circumstances. Be careful here, the MOI will override any conflicting provisions in your shareholder’s agreement.
Dispute avoidance and management: By setting out the agreed shareholder relationships and responsibilities, a shareholders’ agreement will greatly reduce the risk of bitter, disruptive and expensive disputes arising. Where disagreements do arise, reference to the agreement should help diffuse them before they become a major issue. Agree processes for dispute resolution.
Avoidance of deadlock: Deadlocks can occur when shareholders are unable to reach a decision on important matters such as the direction of the company or the appointment of new directors. Deadlocks will inevitably hurt the company and could even result in failure and liquidation. A formal shareholders’ agreement reduces the risk of deadlocks by providing a clear set of rules for decision-making and resolving disputes.
Clarity of roles and responsibilities: Your agreement should define the roles and responsibilities of each shareholder, which can be especially important in companies where the shareholders are also involved in the day-to-day management of the company. This will help to ensure that each shareholder is clear about their obligations and the consequences of not complying with them, and it will help to prevent misunderstandings that may arise from overlapping responsibilities.
Flexibility: Make sure that your agreement is tailored to the specific needs of the company and shareholders. This allows it to be flexible enough to accommodate changes in the company’s structure and operations, while still providing the necessary protection and clarity to shareholders.
Protection of minority shareholders: Sometimes, majority shareholders have different goals and objectives than the minority shareholders. A formal shareholders’ agreement can provide protection to the minority shareholders by ensuring that the company operates in a fair and equitable manner. In doing so it reduces the risk of dispute by setting out the voting rights and decision-making powers of each shareholder.

What should be in it?

As we said above, your agreement should be tailored to your particular needs, so professional advice is essential to ensure that your agreement is legally binding and protects the interests of all parties involved. You will likely to be advised to address at the very least the following aspects –

How loan accounts, profit sharing, payment of dividends, salary and fringe benefit structures and the like will work
Who will manage the company and its business activities, and how
Decision-making processes, with reference to meeting requirements and voting
Roles and responsibilities, powers to make executive decisions and to bind the company
Confidentiality requirements, conflict of interest rules, restraints of trade and the like
Conflict resolution procedures
Valuation and sale of shares, rights of first refusal etc
The list goes on – every company and every set of circumstances will be different, so brainstorm other issues to be included with your fellow shareholders, other stakeholders, and your legal advisors.

Keep everything as short, simple and practical as possible!

Directors – When Are They Personally Liable?

July 2022 | Company / Corporate / Compliance, Debt Recovery, Uncategorized

“… for the benefit of immunity from liability for its debts, those running the corporation may not use its formal identity to incur obligations recklessly, grossly negligently or fraudulently. If they do, they risk being made personally liable.” (Quoted in the judgment below)

Particularly in hard times, it is not at all uncommon to find yourself unable to recover a debt from a company in financial straits whilst at the same time you know that its directors hold assets in their own names. Can you attack them personally?

The answer is founded in the centuries-old concept of companies as separate legal entities or “juristic persons”. They trade in their own names and have their own assets and liabilities, so as a rule directors will not be personally liable for a company’s debts unless either –

They signed personal suretyship for them, or
They fall foul of one of our law’s provisions entitling a court to declare them personally liable.

So, in the absence of personal suretyships, when in practice can you recover a company debt from its director/s? And when are you as director at risk of being sued personally?

Let’s look at the facts and outcome of a recent High Court case for some insights –

The fraudulent car auction, the disappearing company and the director’s defence

The buyer of a car on auction subsequently discovered that it was a 2010 model despite being sold to her as a 2012 model.
She cancelled the sale, returned the car to the auction company that had sold it to her, and, when her demand for a refund of the purchase price was refused, took a default judgment against the company.
What followed was a saga of unsuccessful attempts to recover her money from the company, its address having changed and the director claiming to have resigned and sold the company, which he said had ceased trading and was awaiting deregistration.
The buyer eventually sued the director personally, asking the Court to “pierce the corporate veil”. The director’s defence boiled down to saying that he had not used the company “as a front”.

Piercing the corporate veil

“Piercing the corporate veil” in this context is, simply put, a court holding directors personally liable for a company’s debts by declaring that the company is to be “deemed not to be a juristic person” in respect of particular debt/s.

On what grounds will a court make such a declaration? Per the High Court in this matter:

Where there is “fraud and the improper use of a company or conduct of the affairs of a company” or
“[W]here its incorporation, use or an act performed by or on its behalf [the Court’s underlining] constitutes an unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as a separate entity.”

The director’s misrepresentation and “cavalier disregard” for the company’s interests

On the facts, the Court found that the director had misrepresented the details of the motor vehicle to the buyer, that this misrepresentation was material and induced her to purchase the vehicle, and that it “was deliberate such that it amounted to fraud, alternatively dishonesty, further alternatively improper conduct.”
“Additionally, as the director and owner, he acted with cavalier disregard for the interests of the company … Such conduct is manifestly not in the best interest of the company and may be considered reckless and dishonest. This conduct was indubitably with callous disregard for its effect on the company as a separate legal entity and at a time when he describes its financial situation as being parlous.Therefore, whilst a director is entitled to resign at any time, his resignation cannot be used as a means of evading his fiduciary duties as a director.”
Concluding that “the conduct of the director adversely affected the [buyer] in a way that reasonably should not be countenanced and which constitutes an unconscionable abuse of the company’s juristic personality”, the Court declared him personally liable to repay her the purchase price, interest, and costs.

Directors at War: Terminating Email Access

January 2022 | Business, Company / Corporate / Compliance

“All is fair in love and war…and business is war.” (Jasmine Kundra)

When company directors are locked in dispute, one of them may be tempted to cut off the other’s access to emails and to the business server – a tactic likely to have immediate and serious consequences for the director thus cut off.

Its appeal as a tactic to force the other director to the negotiating table is obvious, but the question is whether the director thus deprived has any legal remedy available to force immediate restoration of access.

A recent Supreme Court of Appeal matter saw a director in that exact position trying to get his access back urgently with a “spoliation order” application.

“Cut off his email and server access”

When the two directors fell out, one (let’s call him ‘A’) applied for liquidation of the company on the grounds of deadlock. Director B opposed this application, and, alleging that A had resigned his directorship, instructed the web hosting entity hosting the company’s server and email addresses to cut off A’s ‘email and company network/server access’ with immediate effect.

A, denying hotly that he had resigned, immediately applied to court for a “spoliation order” restoring his email and server access to him.

Spoliation – a quick and effective way to get back possession, but only if…

The spoliation process is designed to stop disputing parties from taking the law into their own hands and provides a quick and effective way of regaining possession of something if you have been wrongfully deprived of it. It’s a quick and effective remedy because “[T]he injustice of the possession of the person despoiled is irrelevant as he is entitled to a spoliation order even if he is a thief or a robber. The fundamental principle of the remedy is that no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands”. In other words, you can get an immediate spoliation order without having to prove your right to possession of the thing – all you have to prove is the wrongful dispossession.
So that would have been an ideal outcome for A, giving him immediate restoration of his access to his emails rather than having to fight his way slowly through a full trial proving his rights to email and server access. But it was not to be. His problem was that, in order get a spoliation order, one of the first things you must prove is that you were in “peaceful and undisturbed possession” of something.
Now A would have been able to prove such possession if he had for example been wrongfully deprived of use of a company car or even of an “incorporeal” right to use property (such as “quasi-possession” of a right of access under a servitude). But he was unable to convince the Court that his email/server access fell into any such category.
As the Court put it: “Thus only rights to use property, or incidents of occupation, will warrant a spoliation order.” A’s prior use of the email address and server was not an “incident of possession of movable or immovable property”, it is purely “a personal right enforceable, if at all, against [the company].”
In a nutshell, A must now prove his legal right to email and server access – perhaps he will be advised to apply for an ordinary interdict, perhaps he will sue for damages and/or re-instatement, but whichever course he chooses he will need to accept the inevitable delays. In other words, if B’s tactic was to put immediate and substantial pressure on A in the short term it worked – at least for now.

Don’t however take any action like this without professional advice – it could come back to bite you badly if it misfires.

Directors, Creditors – Do Personal Suretyships Survive Business Rescue?

July 2021 | Company / Corporate / Compliance, Insolvency / Liquidation, Litigation

“Creditors have better memories than debtors” (Benjamin Franklin)

In these hard times of pandemic and economically destructive unrest, an unfortunate number of businesses face collapse, and many will opt for the “first aid for companies” option of business rescue.

Creditors coming out of that process with a shortfall (only the luckiest creditors are likely to emerge with full settlement) will naturally look to any personal suretyships they hold to cover that shortfall.

A recent SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) decision has brought welcome clarity to the question of whether – and in what circumstances – such personal suretyships will survive the business rescue process.

Both directors and creditors need to understand the outcome, and to act accordingly.

Sued for R6m, a CEO’s defence crumbles

A company CEO (Chief Executive Officer) signed a personal suretyship in favour of a creditor supplying the company with petroleum products.
When the company fell upon hard times it was placed into business rescue. Eventually a business rescue plan was adopted, the rescue process was terminated, and the creditor sued the CEO for the shortfall on its claim of just over R6m.
The CEO’s main defence was that his liability as surety was an “accessory obligation” – in other words, if the creditor’s claim against the principal debtor (the company) fell away, he should be released from his liability as surety.
But, held the Court, although a principal debtor’s discharge from liability does indeed ordinarily release the surety, our law allows the creditor and the surety to agree otherwise.
And the suretyship agreement in this case did just that. It contained “unobjectionable” and “standard” terms which included a specific agreement by the surety that he would remain liable even if the creditor “compounded with” the company by accepting a reduced amount in settlement of its claim. Nor was there any mention in the business rescue plan of its effect on creditor claims against sureties (it could, for example, have provided specifically for sureties to remain on the hook, or to be released). But the deciding factor remained that the wording of the suretyship was such that the creditor did not abandon its claim against the surety by supporting the business rescue plan.
Bottom line – the CEO goes down over R6m, and the creditor has another shot at emerging unscathed from the mess.

Heed these lessons from the judgment!

The SCA in its judgment undertook a comprehensive interpretation of the terms of the deed of suretyship, of the business rescue plan, and of the relevant legislation. Although the detail will be of more interest to lawyers and academics than it will be to the average director or creditor, it did bring welcome clarity to an issue of great practical importance, and the valuable lessons therein should be heeded –

Directors: As always, think twice before signing any personal suretyship, and if you absolutely have no alternative, at least understand fully what you are letting yourself in for both legally and practically. Equally, ensure that the business rescue plan lets you fully off the hook as regards any possible personal liability; you may be advised to go further and have a separate release agreement with any creditor/s holding your surety. Although not directly relevant to this article, think also of managing any risk of personal liability beyond suretyship, such as allegations of reckless trading and the like.

Creditors: You on the other hand should always try for watertight and upfront suretyships from directors and others with attachable assets (again not directly relevant to this article, but also take whatever security you can over company assets such as debtors, fixed property etc). And when it comes to the business rescue plan, make sure that it leaves your claim against sureties unaffected.

Upfront professional advice and assistance is a real no-brainer here!

« Older Entries