Chairperson, more than 120 amendments are contained in this Bill. Words that should have been defined in the principal Act are now defined and definitions that were not clear have now been made clearer. Instances where a lacuna existed, which would have made it impossible for the Minister to formulate regulations, have now been addressed.
The amendment of section 48(2) of the principal Act now provides for a mechanism to allow shareholders to scrutinise the actions of a company trying to acquire its own shares in terms of section 46 of the principal Act. This amendment enhances protection for minority shareholders and is a welcome development. Shareholders are also protected in another way. In the principal Act a business rescue practitioner was given unfettered discretion in the cancellation of contracts while business rescue proceedings were under way. As a result of the amendment, the business rescue practitioner is now compelled to submit all contracts to court, including security contracts that are intended for cancellation. Subjecting the powers of a business rescue practitioner to judicial scrutiny will prevent arbitrary action.
What is void and what is voidable in the principal Act are not clear. Clause 120 of the Bill seeks to clarify the rules to help distinguish what in the law, a resolution or an agreement is void. In terms of the Bill, a provision, resolution or agreement will be considered void or of no force or effect only after a court of law has declared it as such.
I will now address the question of the banning of directors. While it is acceptable that a five-year ban should exist for run-of-the-mill crimes, provision should have been made for very serious offenders to have a ban imposed on them by a court so that the duration of the ban is in keeping with the offence.
The changes in business law, arising from the principal Act, as well as these amendments, are extensive. Government must not exert pressure on businesses without getting all their ducks in a row. The Minister's insistence on implementation of this legislation on 1 April will not allow time for businesses to digest all the changes. Moreover, the Minister should be engaging the business community so that a seamless change can take place from the old order to the new.
In order for investors to be attracted and for business activity to be encouraged, certainty and clarity has to be obtained.
That the Act will furnish a comprehensive and modernised legal regime is accepted. Businesses move faster than other spheres because of fierce competition. However, regulations in terms of the Act still have to be made and the implementing institutions have yet to be established. Cope would like to see realistic time frames being given so that business and government move in sync on this issue.
While we agree with many of the amendments as being very progressive, we will not support this Bill if the Minister refuses to show any flexibility regarding the date of implementation. I thank you.