We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On 25 May Webber Wentzel issued an update in respect of the
targets indicated as years 6-10 in the B-BBEE Codes of Good
Practice coming into force. You can read this update by
clicking here. By way of background, on 7 February 2012 the
Minister of Trade and Industry issued a notice providing clarity on
when the targets for years 6-10 would be applied. The notice
erroneously included reference to "0-6 years" as opposed
to "6-10 years", and contained no definition of
"measurement period". The notice did explain that the
new, higher targets would be applied to all entities whose
measurement period ended after 9 February 2012. This was understood
to imply that if your financial year end was, for example, 29
February 2012, your next verification would use the targets for
years 6-10.
Consequent to the notice, we understand that verifications have
taken place using the new targets for businesses whose year end was
after 9 February 2012.
On 11 May 2012, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) sent an
email stating that "the DTI is in the process of refining the
Codes of Good Practice on B-BBEE and therefore the 0-5 year targets
will be applied until the process of refining the code is finalised
and gazetted. In light of the aforementioned, the DTI will withdraw
the notice to eliminate the confusion in the market regarding the
implementation of the 6-10 targets and provide further guidance on
the measurement date".
We understand that, subsequent to the above email, there has been
some confusion amongst verification agencies as to the correct
targets to apply.
The DTI has now, on 9 July 2012, published a notice clarifying the
errors in their previous notice. This notice has corrected the
period from "0-6 years" to "6-10" and defined
the measurement period as the immediate twelve (12) months
preceding the measurement date.
It remains unclear which party will carry any costs associated
with reviewing certificates issued after incorrectly utilising the
previous targets. Notwithstanding this, the clarity provided by the
DTI in this latest notice is welcomed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Article body Current Length: 4306 chars Long including spaces
SourcePreview
The Women Corporate Directors (WCD) held a breakfast seminar to discuss Management Liability and the consequent protection mechanisms available to directors and officers.
Key Points
The seminar included female directors and officers from across industries conversing and sharing best practices, and challenges on management liability. The vision of WCD is to be a vehicle to share global and local
The issue of State participation, indigenisation and what has come to be known as economic empowerment was immediately raised as African states gained independence, mainly in response to their colonial history and resulting economic systems, such as the example of apartheid in South Africa, which saw economic participation determined along racial lines.
Section 76 is a play in four acts. The underlying theme running through all four acts is that section 76 does not exclude the common law fiduciary duties owed by a person occupying a position of trust in relation to a company.
Another important judgement for Business Rescue was handed down in the North Gauteng High Court by his Honorable Justice Legodi in the matter of P T van Staden v Angel Ozone Products CC (In Liquidation) & others on the 12th of October 2012.
A private company is famously distinguished from a public company on account of the fact that its memorandum of incorporation must prohibit it from offering its securities to members of the public.
