FOLLOWING A near six hour sitting, a new Companies Act - designed to rescue troubled companies and all matters relating to insolvency - was passed by the Senate Thursday.In a sobering debate which saw contributions from Opposition Senator Shirley Williams and Government Senators Naval Clarke, Delano Franklin, A.J. Nicholson and Norman Grant, the bill, which will in effect repeal and replace the existing Companies Act, first enacted in 1967, was passed without amendments.
It was approved in the House of Representatives last month.
Senator Anthony Johnson, Leader of Opposition Business in the Lower House, however, had concerns.
PROTECTION
He said that there was a need for a provision allowing a temporary period of protection for companies under the new legislation. This protection, he said, would be much like the United States concept of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was believed by many to be in the new Bill, but was not.
He also said that the protection was one of the main provisions required under the companies legislation because "when companies come under pressure they do need this period of relief from attacks."
The Opposition Senator had an unexpected ally in Senator Grant.
"I do feel that this is something we should look at," he said.
Leader of Government Business Senator Burchell Whiteman reminded colleagues that specific legislation dealing with such protection is now under contemplation.
URGENCY
"I am advised that when the (Companies) Act is passed they will be moving with some dispatch, with a greater sense of urgency and energy, on getting that legislation," he said.
Senator Whiteman, who is also the Minister of Information, disclosed that the comprehensive legislation would relate to the rescuing of companies and all matters dealing with insolvency, reconstruction on a more expansive basis, and restoration.
He said the expectation that the provisions would be included in the Companies Act was based on a set of proposals laid out in a legislative model proposed to the Senate committee that examined the Bill.
"It was considered that, because of the implications of that (model) related to other existing laws, they would not seek to put it in here and then get a confusion or conflict," Senator Whiteman said.
