The three applicants claimed they had outstanding amounts due to them by the respondent and sought liquidation. The second respondent was sole shareholder to the business^ that operated successfully for a number of years, underwent a significant expensive, expansive operation funded primarily on credit, then ran out of built up reserves in the result the existing management was unable to cope with the expansionist demands. He supported the rescue Plan. The respondent argued for steps taken that would rectify the current financial position. The final thought processes towards the decision to dismiss the business rescue application and alternatively place the company into liquidation, are interesting - issues such as outstanding funds not being paid into the appropriate provident funds as a core matter regarding employee non-sanction of the Plan to rescue the company, further proven in the company's projected expenditure that included arrears instalments of provident fund contributions. The company financiers fully endorsed the Plan to rescue the company, proven by their intervention application to support.

The creditors of larger claims supported the rescue Plan while the non-critical creditors of more modest claim opposed the Business Rescue Plan. They did not respond to any further statement of rescue. The learned Judge held the Plan itself* appeared hastefully prepared and the prima facie reasonable grounds for rescue had thus far not been met. The company was placed in provisional liquidation - which meant that in the time allocated before final liquidation, a proper investigation should be taken into the financial position of the respondent; a new Plan formulated and applied for and the non-critical creditors' apprehensive qualms fairly addressed. The possibility of the liquidator being permitted to assess their best interests with the option of trading and selling the business as a going concern had potential for further determination. The learned Judge remarked on the fact that the applicants concerns - who had obtained copies of the respondent's contracts with financiers - that the financiers were not deprived of their rights** to cancel, meant that neither courses of the above actions were risk-free to follow for the respondent.

Note the date of the case is not current, however the lesson provided is the actual tendering of An appropriate Business Rescue Plan before the Court. Vide ^Tyre Corporation Cape Town (Pty) Ltd & Others v GT Logistics (Pty) Ltd & Others [2016] ZAWCHC 124; 2017 (3) SA 74 (WCC) - see para 16 under Case 13269/16 for GTL's financial history; *see Richter v ABSA Bank [2015] (5) SA 57 (SCA) where it was decided a renewed application for the Business Rescue Plan must be curially tendered; **rule 35(12) Murray NO and another v FirstRand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank 2015 (3) SA 438 (SCA). Company Law Today's comment - it was open for the company under provisional liquidation [6 weeks, seeing as the provisional liquidator could only advise but not actually 'do anything'] to return to the drawing board to a revised Plan instead of waiting to follow a bleak final liquidation; and then the company should have made haste to speak with the financiers.