- Liquidators act for all creditors collectively, not for individual investors seeking the quickest recovery.
- Investors who withdrew money before a scheme collapsed may still be required to repay those funds under South African insolvency law.
- Proving a claim is essential for recovery, but creditors should first understand the potential risk of contributing towards estate administration costs.
When investors contact me after a scheme has collapsed, they almost always ask the same question first. Will I get my money back?
I cannot promise that they will. Recovery depends on whether money or assets can be found, whether they can lawfully be brought back into the estate, what that costs, and how many creditors must share what remains. An investor may receive part of a claim, years later. In some estates there is no payment at all.
That is difficult to hear, particularly when an investment was showing a healthy balance a few weeks earlier. But a balance on a screen is not always an accurate reflection of your investment. What a liquidator can distribute is money and property that actually exist, and that can be traced and lawfully recovered.
Liquidation is not a queue for a full refund. It is a legal process for taking charge and control of an insolvent estate, investigating what happened to the funds and assets, and dealing with creditors as a group in accordance with their statutory preference.
Understanding that difference usually will bring assurance and comfort to investors and creditors, which will make the process less frustrating. What follows is the process as it actually runs, in the order it affects you.
1. Why the liquidator cannot simply pay you back
A liquidator is not your lawyer. Liquidators do not act for the investor who lost the most, or the one who calls most often. Liquidators act for the general body of creditors, all of them, together and must keep the group’s interests, as a whole, at heart.
That is not a policy choice. It follows from a principle South African law has applied for more than a century, called the concursus creditorum, which simply means a coming together of creditors.
The Appellate Division set it out in Walker v Syfret in 1911, in a passage courts still quote. When a winding-up order is made, the hand of the law is laid upon the estate. From that moment nothing can be done by one creditor that damages the position of the others, and each claim is dealt with as it stood when the order was issued.
In plain terms, the law freezes everyone in place. It stops a race in which the quickest or best-connected creditor takes what is left while the others wait. So, when one investor was paid out in full a month before the collapse, and another received nothing, a liquidator cannot let that stand simply because the first payment came earlier. The law does not always treat that timing as luck the fortunate investor keeps.
This might sound impersonal or “unfair” to someone who has lost their savings. It is not meant to dismiss the loss. It is the mechanism that stops the remaining value being carried off by a few at the expense of everyone else.
2. How the money is actually found
The liquidators tend to commence by looking at the bank statements. Once a financial institution has been notified of the liquidation, those records are usually available, and they are the most reliable starting point.
Statements show money entering and leaving. From there we follow it outward, into other accounts, into property, into vehicles, and into assets, especially if assets are registered in somebody else’s name.
The records are rarely complete. A liquidator walks into a business blindfolded, knowing nothing about how it operated, often with very little documentation and cooperation, and must reconstruct its affairs from whatever survives, very often with little to no assistance from the perpetrators.
The enquiry is where the picture fills in
That is why an insolvency enquiry is essential. It is statutory machinery which can be set in motion to investigate the affairs of the company in liquidation. Directors, employees, auditors and associates can be required to produce records and answer questions under oath. It is not a criminal trial, and nobody is convicted in one.
Liquidators usually form a reasonable idea from the documents beforehand, but clarity generally comes through the enquiry itself. It cannot cover everything, and attempting it would cost the estate more than it is worth. But a focussed enquiry can lead to great recoveries to the benefit of the general body of creditors.
3. Why it takes as long as it does
Investors are usually frustrated by the time this process takes, and that frustration is fair and reasonable. But much of the delay sits outside the liquidator’s hands.
The first meeting of creditors
In the winding-up of a company, the Master of the High Court convenes the first meeting of creditors. The liquidator does not. Until that meeting happens, no claims can be proved against the estate, and no final liquidator can be elected.
That step controls everything behind it. Until claims are proved, nobody knows who the creditors are. Until a final liquidator is elected, the appointment stays provisional, and its powers are limited. A delay at the front of the process holds up all of it, and it is not for the liquidators to fix. Provisional liquidators can, however, approach the Master or the Court for extended powers where exceptional circumstances exist.
What actually drives the cost
Investigations and legal proceedings are expensive, and they are necessary to establish why a company failed. The avoidable portion usually comes from the other side. Directors, auditors and employees who are obstructive or evasive force every document to be compelled and every transaction to be litigated, and each of those steps consumes money that would otherwise reach creditors. Where cooperation is given, the work moves faster and costs less.
4. Why you may be asked to give money back
This is the part of the process that surprises investors most, and it needs to be understood before it arrives in a letter. There are two separate routes by which money already paid out can be recovered, and they work differently.
Route one: the whole business was unlawful
If a court declares the business itself unlawful, every transaction it conducted was unlawful, and everyone who received funds must return them. Restitution then runs both ways.
The person who repays has a claim against the estate for what they originally invested, dealt with alongside everyone else’s. Nobody is stripped of their position. Everyone returns to the same starting line.
Route two: the transaction can be set aside as an impeachable transaction
Even where the business as a whole has not been declared unlawful, the Insolvency Act gives liquidators specific powers to recover particular payments. Three of them come up repeatedly in schemes.
Where the company gave something away and got nothing back
In an ordinary business, money going out is matched by something coming in. You pay a supplier, and you receive stock. A scheme is different. It pays an investor their capital plus a profit that was never earned, because no real trading took place, and the money comes from people who joined later.
The company parted with cash and received nothing of value in return. Section 26 of the Insolvency Act allows that payment to be recovered. This is where a real argument usually begins.
Where one creditor was paid ahead of the rest
The ordinary shape of a collapsing scheme. The company is already sinking. Investor A is paid in full, Investor B receives nothing, and weeks later the company folds into liquidation.
A has done nothing wrong, but walked away with money that would have been shared had the payment come later. Section 29 says timing should not decide who recovers. Investor A returns it, and then claims alongside everybody else.
Where pressure produced the payment
Section 29 asks what happened. Section 30 asks why. As a scheme begins to fail, some investors turn hostile and threaten the people running it, who then pay out whoever is frightening them most to make the problem go away. That is a deliberate decision to put one person ahead of everyone else, and it can be seen as undue pressure.
The investors who shouted loudest and got paid are frequently the most exposed of all.
So, is it the profit, or everything?
This is the question every investor in that position asks, and the answer is uncomfortable. Where a court has declared the business unlawful, liquidators generally pursue the whole amount withdrawn, not merely the portion above what was invested.
The reasoning follows from the declaration itself. If there was never a lawful agreement, there is no basis on which to treat part of the payment as money properly owed to you.
A further question arises where the payment was made in an asset that has since risen in value, such as a cryptocurrency. Should the amount repayable be measured on the day of withdrawal, or at today’s value? The difference can be very large, and South African courts are in various schemes being asked to decide thereon.
Whichever basis applies, note what the exchange actually involves. You hand over money now and receive in return a claim against an estate that may pay a fraction of it, years later. That is not a neutral swap, and it is why these letters land as hard as they do.
The date that catches people out
Payments made after the date of liquidation are void from the outset, unless a court orders otherwise. That is the effect of section 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, which still governs winding-up.
The date of liquidation does not run from the day a court grants an order. It runs from the day the liquidation application is issued by the Registrar of the High Court.
Those are different dates and the gap can be months, or in some instances, years. An application is issued when the papers are filed. The order comes later, after a hearing. In between, the company usually carries on, and most people have no idea anything has been filed.
So, an investor may withdraw in that window, in good faith, having heard nothing from anyone, and still have to return it as the transaction is void. Not knowing is not by itself a defence, and persuading a court otherwise is not always an easy task.
None of this is punishment for having withdrawn successfully. Leaving those payments where they landed would mean the loss falls wherever chance happened to place it, and that is precisely what the law has been designed to prevent.
5. What proving a claim can cost you
Once the first meeting has been convened, creditors can prove their claims. Two things are worth knowing before you do.
Get the paperwork right
Claims are regularly completed incorrectly or submitted with too little supporting material. Explain the claim fully and attach everything showing how the amount arose: the agreement, proof of payment, statements and correspondence. More is better than less.
Ask about contribution before you prove
Administering an estate costs money, and those costs are paid from the estate before anything reaches creditors. The money for that comes from what is called free residue, meaning assets not already promised to a secured creditor. If there is none, or not enough, the shortfall does not simply disappear.
It is recovered from the creditors who proved claims
You lodged a claim to recover money, and you can be asked to pay in instead. Only creditors who have proved a claim can be asked to contribute. Proving is the act that brings you within reach of it.
This is not a reason to stay away. In most estates where there are assets or funds, the question never arises, and an investor who does not prove a claim receives nothing at all. It is a reason to ask the provisional liquidators, before you prove, whether a contribution risk has been identified in that estate.
Liquidators carry the other half of that duty. Liquidators should be transparent with creditors about whether a danger of a contribution exists.
6. What to do when a scheme collapses
Preserve everything, immediately. Download your statements before the platform disappears, because it usually does, and keep agreements, transfer confirmations, bank details, correspondence and the details of anyone who received or promoted the investment.
Then establish whether a liquidation order has been granted and who has actually been appointed. A social media group, a promoter or a self-appointed representative does not speak for the estate. No responsible liquidator will promise you a percentage or a payment date before an estate has been properly investigated.
The number on the screen was never the question
The first article in this series, Investment or Ponzi Scheme, set out how to examine an investment before paying money into it. This one carries the other half of the warning.
Once a scheme collapses, recovery is not a matter of asking for your money back. It requires evidence, legal authority, and time. The figure that appeared on your screen is no longer the question.
The question is what existed outside it, and how much of that can still be brought back.
| If a scheme you invested in has collapsed Preserve the record now Download statements before the platform goes offline. Keep agreements, proof of payment, correspondence, group messages and the details of whoever recruited you. Verify who is appointed Confirm whether a liquidation order has been granted and who the appointed practitioners are. A promoter or online group does not speak for the estate. Ask before you prove a claim Ask the provisional liquidators whether a contribution risk has been identified. Only creditors who have proved claims can be asked to contribute towards a shortfall. Expect the process, not a promise Ask to be informed of creditors’ meetings and what documents are required. Nobody can responsibly promise a percentage or a date. If you were paid out, take advice Money received before a collapse, or after a liquidation application was issued, may be recoverable. Do not ignore a demand and do not simply pay it. |
More about Vezi de Beer Inc.
Vezi de Beer Inc. is a vanguard South African law firm experienced in insolvency, business rescue and commercial litigation. Its practitioners serve on the Master’s panels as liquidators, trustees and curators, and are members of SARIPA, bringing frontline insight into failed investment schemes and the work of tracing and recovering assets.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute financial or legal advice. Readers should obtain advice specific to their circumstances. If you need to consult or have a question on these matters, email expert@conviction.co.za
