The moratorium, so important, does not prevent a landlord (owner) from terminating a tenancy agreement with his tenant (tenant) – the termination of a contract does not constitute an action in the action of the landlord against his tenant. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal for Cloete Murray/FirstRand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank. In addition, termination of a contract is a legal act – legal acts are not suspended by the moratorium in s133, so such termination would be valid. In Stamfordhill CC/Velvet Star Entertainment CC, the Tribunal stated: “This would not allow the paramedic to go into the occupation of the land in order for the respondent to continue the business and not meet his obligation to pay the rent. It had to fulfil its obligations with respect to the contract that had been concluded before the start of the business rescue procedure and, as it had not done so, the applicant was entitled to terminate the contract.” (i) temporary supervision of the company and the management of its business, business and assets; If the LA Sport Tribunal indicated that this was indeed the case, I consider that this conclusion to be insufficient and erroneous. I am the invitation to determine the legality or illegality of the possession of property within the meaning of section 133, paragraph 1, on the date of a corporate rescue procedure. Once it is established that the property was legally in the company`s possession in the rescue of the business at the beginning of the company`s rescue, that detention cannot be made illegal by a declaration of termination made by a creditor during the company`s rescue. Such an interpretation would give all the logic behind the concept of corporate rescue. Therefore, even if it were found that the termination of a contract was legal and valid, the corporate rescue company would remain in lawful possession of the property in question. The legality of the termination of a contract during the company`s rescue, since the beginning of the company`s rescue, the question of whether a creditor can terminate a contract during a business rescue procedure is controversial. It is not clear whether the repeal of the agreement constitutes an “enforcement measure” that is prohibited by Section 133 (1) of Companies Act 71 of 2008, which contains the moratorium provisions.
This issue has not yet been brought to the attention of our courts. The Supreme Court of Appeal (Supreme Court of Appeal, SCA) stated in Cloete Murry`s recent decision in paragraph 14, Fourie AJA, that it is generally accepted that a moratorium on legal proceedings against a company undergoing a corporate bailout is fundamental, as it provides a decisive respite or respite to allow a company to restructure its business and that it has been well described that the moratorium is the cornerstone of all business rescue procedures. This means that BRP may suspend the lease in which the company participates in the rescue of the business (as a tenant), so that the lessor can terminate the lease due to a breach of its obligations after the opening of a business rescue procedure.