ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 3, p. 434-440
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i3a7
None
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 3, p. 441-458
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i3a8
None
ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Durban University of Technology
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 37 Issue 3, p. 459 – 462
https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v37/i3a9
None
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, North-West University
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 36 Issue 3, 2024, p. 361 – 377
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v36/i3a1
Financial inclusion is a necessary global responsibility for policymakers to ensure sustainable long-term growth and it is also considered to be a strong foundation for human development. The current financial system in South Africa does not include all members of society, especially low-income earners. Different factors attract the privileged members of society into the financial system and exclude low-income earners and the poor from participating in financial markets. The current legal framework and policies are inadequate in giving the poor and low-income earners access to the financial services and products offered by financial institutions. This article provides an analysis of legislation related to financial inclusion and discusses the role-players that significantly impact the inclusion of low-income earners in the financial markets. The barriers to financial inclusion will be discussed, and measures will be proposed to promote financial inclusion for low-income earners in South African markets. Furthermore, factors that promote financial inclusion, such as internet access, will be discussed.
ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Professor, University of the Witwatersrand, School of Law; Lecturer, University of Johannesburg, Department of Mercantile Law
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 36 Issue 3, 2024, p. 378 – 397
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAMLJ/v36/i3a2
Certain nuances relating to rescue proceedings inadvertently place a practitioner under staid constraints, hindering the execution of statutory duties. Nevertheless, section 143(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (‘the 2008 Act’) provides for the remuneration of business rescue practitioners, based on a prescribed tariff. Where practitioners find these tariffs non-commensurate, they may propose the payment of additional remuneration payable on a contingency basis. In certain circumstances, the acceptance of a ‘success fee’ by a practitioner could possibly constitute a breach of the practitioner’s duty to act with the utmost good faith. Despite incentives in South Africa encouraging practitioners to adopt workable and successful business rescue plans, some practitioners continue to negotiate for the payment of success fees. The 2008 Act is silent on the lawfulness or otherwise of success fees. This article discusses the practitioners’ remuneration arrangements concluded during rescue proceedings to determine whether they should be permitted to negotiate success fees. Furthermore, it reflects on the fiduciary duties (if any) that practitioners owe to the companies for which they are mandated to rescue.