Project thunder shareholder liquidating trust Sex chat perosnal online
If there was a reasonable hope of tiding over the period of deep conflict and of Nkonjane emerging from its malaise to carry on at a profit, there may well have been insufficient reason for a court to wind up the company on the just and equitable provision.
However, the evidence showed a justifiable breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders regarding the conduct and management of the company's affairs.
This is because the deadlock and partnership analogy are broad in scope and, at the same time, they are the easiest categories to satisfy in terms of proof.
for scenarios where in substance a partnership exists in the guise of company.
A court must be careful not to construe the authorities as setting out a series of restrictive principles which would confine the phrase "just and equitable" to rigid categories.
The decisive question therefore is: When is it "just and equitable" for the court to order that a company be wound up on the "just and equitable" ground?
The internal wrangling, mutual disillusionment and distrust, and the consequent breakdown of the relationship between the shareholders paralysed the company.In particular, the state of animosity precluded all reasonable hope of cooperation in the attainment of the company's financial goals.appropriately capture the problem of deadlock.The somewhat simple question confronting Ponnan JA was whether the first appellant, Apco Africa (Pty) Ltd ("the Company"), ought to be wound up on the ground that this course was just and equitable within the meaning of section 344(h) of the old 61 of 1973, or more accurately, whether such an order was properly granted by the court below.Apco was to refer clients' work required to be performed on the African continent to the company.The residual profit generated by the company was to be shared on an equal footing while the directors seconded by Arcay were to manage the affairs of the company.
In its application, the just and equitable ground does not admit of a strict categorical approach.