Judgment: MM Tayob NO & Another v Standard Bank SA & Others

26 November 2024

Dear Member

1. In this matter the first applicant sought intervention to set aside the creditors' votes rejecting the Business Rescue Plan, arguing they were inappropriate.
2. The respondents voted against the Plan, citing its financial implausibility and the unrealistic repayment timeline.
3. The Court ruled that the Plan was unsustainable and unrealistic, particularly given the company’s diminished scale (only 5 of 29 stores remained operational) and that the BR process, lasting over 11 years, was inconsistent with the Companies Act's intent for limited and efficient rescue efforts.
4. The Court determined that Standard Bank's vote against the Plan was rational and reasonable, as the Plan failed to demonstrate a viable path to repayment.
5. The application by the BRP to set aside Standard Bank’s vote was dismissed.
6. The court ordered the second applicant (the company in business rescue) to pay Standard Bank's legal costs on the C scale, including costs of senior counsel where employed.

Take care,

René Bekker
Chief Operating Officer

  MM Tayob NO & Another v Standard Bank SA & Others. Case No: 078256/2023