The Department of Trade and Industry has published the Draft Companies Amendment Bill and is asking for your comment.
The Bill seeks to make amendments to Companies Act No. 71 of 2008 (the “Companies Act”). The reasons for these amendments are listed by the DTI to keep up with current trends and also to close some loopholes in the in the Companies Act.
You are invited to object or support the Bill by providing comment below. Should you be unsure, please read the live comments, media, summary or documents below. Closing date is midnight 21 November 2018.
941 active citizens in this campaign, so far
Affected areas include;
- Effective date of amendments to memoranda of incorporation
- Disclosure of remuneration payable to ‘prescribed officers’
- Directors’ remuneration report
- Share capital structure of companies
- Financial assistance within a group of companies
- Share buy-backs
- Social and ethics committees
- Appointment of auditors
- Application of the Takeover Regulations to private companies
- Business rescue and the treatment of landlords
- Disputes concerning company name
- Black economic empowerment
The key proposals relate to the following:
- Effective date of amendments to memoranda of incorporation (s 16): Different opinions over when an amendment to a company’s memorandum of incorporation takes effect will be resolved. The Bill proposes that amendments will take effect 10 business days after receipt of the notice of amendment, if the Companies Commission, after the expiry of the 10 business days, has not endorsed the notice of amendment sooner or has failed to reject the amendment with reasons.
- Disclosure of remuneration payable to ‘prescribed officers’ (s 30): It is proposed that remuneration and benefits received by ‘prescribed officers’ in addition to directors, must be disclosed in the audited annual financial statements of the company. Each individual must be named. A ‘prescribed officer’ is typically an executive who is in a position to influence the management of the company or one of its significant divisions.
- Directors’ remuneration report (s 30A): The directors of a public company will have to prepare a directors’ remuneration report for presentation to shareholders at the AGM.
- Share capital structure of companies (S 38A): The Companies Act does not allow for a company to fix its share capital structure where it contains errors. It is proposed that a company or any interested person be permitted to approach a court for an order validating the creation, allotment or issue of shares. This type of court application was allowed for under the 1973 Companies Act. The proposed change is welcomed, as there is presently a gap in the legislation.
- Financial assistance within a group of companies (s 45): Presently, any financial assistance granted by a company to its subsidiary must be authorised by the board and the shareholders by way of a special resolution. The Bill proposes that the special resolution requirement should not apply where a company gives financial assistance to its own subsidiary.
- Share buy-backs (s 48): The Bill requires that a share buyback must be approved by a special resolution of shareholders if shares are to be bought back from a director, a prescribed officer or a person related to a director or a prescribed officer. A special shareholder resolution will also be required if the buyback entails an acquisition other than a pro rataoffer made to all shareholders or transactions effected in the ordinary course on a stock exchange.
- Social and ethics committees (ss 61 & 62): In terms of the Bill, it is mandatory for a public company or a state-owned company to appoint a social and ethics committee at each annual general meeting. It sets out the composition of that committee and its functions. It also allows companies to apply to the Companies Tribunal for an exemption from these requirements if the company has another mechanism within its structures to perform the functions of the committee or if it is not necessary in the public interest to require the company to have a committee, having regard to the nature and extent of the activities of the company. The committee’s report will have to be presented to shareholders at the AGM.
- Appointment of auditors (s 90): The provisions are designed to ensure that an auditor is independent of the company which he or she audits. The Companies Act presently prohibits a person who has enjoyed a close working relationship with the company (for example a director, a prescribed officer, employee or consultant) within the past five years from being appointed auditor. It is proposed that the five year period be reduced to two years.
- Application of the Takeover Regulations to private companies (s 118): It is proposed that the Takeover Regulations should only apply with respect to an ‘affected transaction’ or ‘offer’ involving a private company or its securities, if the private company is required to have its annual financial statements audited or if its memorandum of incorporation requires it to do so. The change should be embraced as, to date, the Takeover Regulations apply to many transactions undertaken by private companies where it is simply inappropriate and unnecessary.
- Business rescue and the treatment of landlords (ss 135 & 145): The Bill provides that any amounts due by a company under business rescue to a landlord for rent or services will be regarded as ‘post commencement financing’ and the landlord will have a voting interest in the business rescue proceedings to the extent of its claim. Post commencement finance, whether secured or unsecured, enjoys preference over unsecured creditors.
- Disputes concerning company names (s 160): In terms of the Companies Act, the Companies Tribunal may deal with disputes regarding company names. It is proposed that where a company has been ordered to change its name, and it fails to do so, the Companies Commission may substitute its registration number as the name of the company in question.
- Black economic empowerment (s 195): The Bill seeks to give the Companies Tribunal the power to adjudicate cases referred to it by the B-BBEE Commission. This is not surprising, given the need to ensure cooperation amongst the different regulators.
Add your comment now.
A copy of your message will be sent to you along with an automated proof of receipt. Check your junk mail folder if you can’t find it.
LIVE COMMENT FEED
Displaying newest 5 comments sent.
No I do not
No I do not
I object!!! Coz what about the poor people and even middle class people with kids we can barely keep up with our monthly bills especially we who have children and jobs that don't pay enough!!! Constantly scraping through the month as is
Yes I do
Yes, this is good for transparency, since even private companies are involved in shady business, especially the big chiefs!
Why would you want to hide anything that is not proprietary or intellectual property?
No I do not
We are tired of public private partnerships, ngo's in which We the People pay and the rest profits. We've had it with bankster socialism and it prescribing how government must operate messing up natural economic activity. Soon this is coming to South Africa. Pay attention. Video
We generally support the amendments required to ensure a clean (fraud free), ethical and transparent business environment.
However we do feel that It Is Necessary To Put The Brakes On The Proliferation Of Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (B BBEE). It Is Our Firm Conviction That The B BBEE Legislation Has Served Its Time (And Failed!); And That This Adverse And DISCRIMINATORY Practice (See Should Now Be Withdrawn From ALL Related Legislation. We believe that after more than twenty years, South Africa’s Affirmative Action And Employment Equity Policies Are Now UNCONSTITUTIONAL In Terms Of Section 36 Of Chapter 2 Of The Constitution of South Africa, As It Is Adversely And MOST UNFAIRLY affecting Young White South Africans seeking employment. They are virtually excluded from all fields. To a lesser degree, Young Indian And Coloured South Africans Are SIMILARLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, As The PURE BLACK South Africans Are Pertinently Favoured Above Them. This Is Causing South African Society In General To Become More And More Racially Polarised.
It Is Our Firm Conviction That After More Than Twenty Years, the various degrees of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B3E2) Have FAILED DISMALLY To Improve The Lives Of The Poorer Persons In South African society. The ONLY INDIVIDUALS To Have Benefitted Are The PERSONS IN POWER And THEIR COHORTS.
We consummately believe that for South Africa to flourish, our legislation should Encourage The Development Of A SOCIAL CONSCIENCE Within A FREE-MARKET ENVIRONMENT. We should Avoid At ALL COST Proliferating DIVISIVE And DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION And PRACTICES.
Important to note; this is not a petition but is the first step in an essential Participative Democracy process protected under the SA Constitution. Your comment is immediately sent as a unique email to the designated government representative and must, by law, be acknowledged and considered. Had this been a petition, all comments would be seen as a single collective submission.
By using this service you ensure an accurate record is held by civil society (on our encrypted database) so government cannot dispute facts or figures. This process forms a solid foundation for a legal case should the necessity arise.