Tag Archives: Company

Requirements to restore a deregistered company

Posted on by

B2There are various circumstances in which a company (or close corporation) can become deregistered at the CIPC.

  1. The company itself can apply for deregistration at the CIPC, for any number of reasons.
  2. If a company has not submitted and paid its annual returns for more than two successive years, the CIPC will inform such a company of the fact and the intention of the CIPC to deregister said company. If such a company does not take any steps to remedy the situation, the CIPC will proceed to finally deregister it.
  3. If the CIPC believes that the company has been inactive for seven or more years.

How can a company be restored?

It is possible to restore such a company or close corporation which has been finally deregistered, but all outstanding information and annual returns (including the fees) will have to be lodged with the CIPC. An additional R200 prescribed re-instatement fee must also be paid.

Recently, the CIPC has set additional requirements to do this, which also impacts on the time, administration and cost to restore such a company. These requirements took effect from 1 November 2012.

The steps and requirements for the re-instatement process are:

  1. The proper application CoR40.5 form Application for Re-instatement of Deregistered Company must be completed and submitted, originally signed by the duly authorised person.
  2. A certified copy of the identity document of the applicant (director / member) must be submitted.
  3. A certified copy of the identity document of the person filing the application must be submitted.
  4. A Deed Search, reflecting the ownership of any immovable property (or not) by the company, must be obtained and submitted together with the application.
  5. If the company does in fact own any immovable property, a letter from National Treasury must be submitted, indicating that the department has no objection to the re-instatement of the company.
  6. Also, if the company does in fact own any immovable property, a letter from the Department of Public Works must be submitted, indicating that the department has no objection to the re-instatement of the company.
  7. An advertisement must be placed in a local newspaper where the business of the company is conducted, giving 21 days’ notice of the proposed application for re-instatement.
  8. If the deregistration was due to non-compliance with regards to annual returns, an affidavit indicating the reasons for the non-filing of annual returns must be submitted.
  9. If the company itself applied for deregistration, an affidavit indicating the reasons for the original request for deregistration must be submitted.
  10. Sufficient documentary proof indicating that the company was in business or that it had any assets or liabilities at the time of deregistration must be submitted.
  11. All outstanding annual returns must be submitted and paid, along with any penalties.

Upon compliance of all of the above requirements, the CIPC will issue a notice to the company that it is restored.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

New requirements to re-instate a company or close corporation

Posted on by

B3A company or close corporation may be deregistered upon request from the company or close corporation or any other third party. A company or close corporation may also be re-instated. However, since the withdrawal of Practice Note 6 of 2008, and its replacement with Notice 08 of 2017, there are new requirements for the re-instatement.

The Practice Note is issued in terms of Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Companies Regulations, 2011, and is applicable to the re-instatement of companies and close corporations in terms of Companies Regulation 40(6) and (7).

What are the new requirements?

Since December 2016, to re-instate a company or close corporation, the re-instatement application on a form CoR40.5 must comply with the following requirements regardless of the cause or date of deregistration:

  • Certified identity copy of the applicant;
  • Certified identity copy of the owner of the customer code;
  • Multiple deed search (deed search of each of the 10 regional deeds offices);
  • Letter from the Department of Public Works, only if the multiple deed search reflects immovable property;
  • Sufficient documentary proof indicating that the company or close corporation was in business or that it had any outstanding assets or liabilities, at the time of deregistration;
  • Mandate from the applicant confirming that the customer may submit on his/her behalf.

When can a company or close corporation be re-instated?

CIPC will only consider re-instating a company or close corporation if it can provide proof that it was conducting business at the time of deregistration, or has any other economic value. Furthermore, upon the successful processing of the re-instatement application, all outstanding annual returns must be filed in order to complete the process, within 30 business days from date of the re-instatement.

Reference:

  • Companies and Intellectual Property Commission | CIPC. Practice Note 08 of 2017, Requirements for re-instatement in terms of Regulations 4(2)(b).

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Facebook`s revenge

Posted on by

Facebook, Twitter and other social network sites are part of many people’s lives and serve as a useful vehicle for sharing one’s personal views. However, these sites may have unfortunate ramifications. Let’s be honest, ranting in public about your boss has never been seen as a smart career move. It is one thing to speak your heart out about your boss to a friend over a drink, but for some reason or another, employees tend to lose their inhibitions when there is a computer screen between them and the world out there.

What happens when an employee makes use of a to air his/her views or to say nasty things about his/her employer?

Courts have held that it is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee for posting intentionally offensive statements about his/her employer on a social networking website like Facebook.

In Sedick & another vs Krisray (Pty) Ltd [2011] 8 BALR 879 (CCMA), employees were dismissed for bringing the company’s name into disrepute by publishing derogatory comments about the owner of the company on Facebook. The employees claimed that the employer breached their right to privacy by accessing their profiles on Facebook.

What happened?

The employees, De Reuck and Sedick, worked for a fashion accessories company. The company’s Marketing Manager logged onto her Facebook account and navigated to De Reuck’s Facebook page because she wanted to send her a friend request. She was able to see everything on the employee’s Facebook wall without being given access as a friend. She came across numerous posts by Sedick and other employees where they exchanged several snide remarks, which included the following: “Trust me, no one can put up with so much shit when the f*cking kids join the company!”; “From so-called professionalism; 2 dumb brats running a mickey mouse business”; “… today was hectic with Frankenstein”; “What an idiot”; “A very ugly man with a dark soul”.

The right to privacy?

The Commissioner noted that, in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002, section 4(1), “Any person … may intercept any communication if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence.”

According to the Commissioner, the internet is a public domain and Facebook users have the option to restrict access to their profiles as well as the information that they publish. Because of the employees’ failure to make use of the privacy option, they had abandoned their right to privacy and the protection of the above mentioned act.

Fair dismissal?

The employees argued that they had not damaged the company’s reputation because they did not directly refer to the company or anyone who managed it. The Marketing Manager and the Arbitrator agreed that the references to the company and its management were obvious, because the people who were reading the comments would probably have known what and whom they were about.

The Commissioner held that, considering what was written, where the comments were posted, to whom they were directed and by whom they were made, the comments brought the employer’s good name into disrepute with persons both inside and outside the organisation.

The Commissioner confirmed that a dismissal under such circumstances could be fair if the employer follows the correct procedures and if the evidence used against the employee has not been illegally obtained in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act.

The moral of the story is: if you had a really rotten day at the office and are about to post some nasty comments about Mr or Mrs Boss, hold on a second. Do not write under the influence of alcohol, anger or frustration, as this sharing might get you fired.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)