It has always been common commercial practice for a creditor to call for a personal suretyship when extending credit to a juristic debtor.
The business community learns the advantages of business rescue as opposed to liquidation.
The trend developing with landlords and banks is that when there is a risk of business rescue and an existing breach of an agreement, the creditor must act immediately on the breach and, where possible, cancel the agreement.
On-demand guarantees constitute primary independent obligations placed on a guarantor to make payment of a guaranteed amount.
In the recent case of ABSA Bank Limited vs De Beer & Others (2015), the Judge held that a loan made to a Mr de Beer, retired farmer, constituted reckless credit and did not need to be repaid. Whilst that decision may provide relief to the De Beers', it may be a chill wind for other consumers of similar ages and positions when seeking bank finance.
Proposed amendments to the Construction Industry Development Regulations of 2004 were published in the Government Gazette on 29 May 2015 and giving 60 days for public input. The proposed amendments are in line with international best practice and aim to facilitate timeous payment of contractors and suppliers in the construction sector and propose the implementation of statutory dispute resolution / adjudication processes applicable to construction contracts.
In terms of Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, a creditor who votes against the adoption of a business rescue plan runs the risk of having their claim purchased by another party at a value of what the creditor would have received on liquidation of the company. In the terms of the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America this procedure is referred to as a "cram down" which is imposed on creditors in business rescue situations.