In the process of filing for corporate rescue, the Master
of the High Court is served with the papers because he is required to provide a
report, in support or against the application, but the judge reserves the
ultimate authority to make the determination.
In October 2022, CAWUZ applied to have the country’s
third-largest mobile telecommunication company placed under corporate rescue to
avert potential liquidation.
CAWUZ represents the workers who are owed large sums of
money in unpaid salaries. CAWUZ itself is owed some money in unpaid
subscriptions, making it a creditor.
The basis for the application is that the company is
financially distressed because it has failed to pay its debts. It is submitted
that, in spite of the apparent financial challenges, the company still enjoys
some real prospects of being rescued from imminent collapse. CAWUZ further
submits that to save the company from liquidation, it must be placed under the
supervision and management of a corporate rescue practitioner who must draw up
a rescue plan to turn around its business.
Mr Knowledge Hofisi of Aurifin Capital has been nominated
as the corporate rescue practitioner. CAWUZ contends Telecel has been on the
brink of collapse for a long time now. It has demonstrated the company’s
liabilities exceed its assets, an indication of insolvency. But its financial
woes “are not insurmountable” judging from the performance of the company’s
competitors in the market. Telecel, CAWUZ argues, despite insolvency, still
enjoys some “realistic prospects of recovery if accorded an opportunity to do
so.”
CAWUZ has also explored the “inexhaustible” business
opportunities in the telecommunications sector and has used “this to
demonstrate that the company has reasonable prospects of being rescued and of
being a successful concern again.”
Telecel, however, opposed the application and challenged,
among other things, the CAWUZ locus standi to take the application to the High
Court. It contends that CAWUZ has no legal standing to bring the application as
it is not an affected person in terms of the law.
While Telecel denied it was in financial distress, V
Gapara, Master of The High Court (Additional Master)-Insolvency and Minors said
it did not seem to disprove the fact that the company had been failing to pay
its debts when they fell due and that it was still in debt. Mr Gapara contended
that it was clear from the founding papers, including the recent financial
records, that the company was financially distressed.
“The records show a company whose liabilities exceed its
assets,” said Mr Gapara.
“It is thus, from a balance sheet standpoint, insolvent.
This much does not seem to have been disproved by the company which…seems to
suggest that the true value of its assets can only be ascertained after a firm
of chartered accountants it engaged completes its asset revaluation exercise.
There is no indication that the exercise has been completed and that the report
has been released,” Mr Gapare added.
He argued corporate rescue was the only viable option for
saving the company. He argued that while Telecel was in financial distress, it
enjoyed reasonable prospects of being rescued.
“Should the court decide, in the circumstances; that
corporate rescue proceedings are the most appropriate remedy to cure the
company’s financial distress, enabling it to pay off its creditors and steering
it back to a state of commercial viability, the Master has no objections
against the appointment of Mr Knowledge Hofisi to the position of corporate
rescue practitioner for Telecel.” Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment