Background: Business rescue, in terms of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008, is still relatively new to the South African business environment. The need for a successful business rescue regime is beyond doubt. However, a consistent manner to measure the success of the regime has not been determined. Previous research into possible indicators of business rescue success was based on a review of international business rescue regimes that share the same underlying philosophy as the South African business rescue regime. Aim and Setting: This study extends previous research efforts by soliciting the opinions of 16 South African, senior business rescue practitioners on the indicators of business rescue success. Method: The researchers used a qualitative research approach. The Delphi research technique was used to gather qualitative and quantitative empirical data from business rescue practitioners. Results: The experts reached a high level of consensus on various indicators of a successful business rescue. Most notable are that business rescue should save as many jobs as possible and that the actual outcome should be compared to that estimated in the business rescue plan. A novel indicator of success is the business rescue points saved or rescued, when using the public interest score. Conclusion: The study makes a valuable contribution to the debate on what constitutes a successful business rescue by adding the considered opinion on indicators of success by one group of experts in the field of business rescue, namely senior business rescue practitioners.

Purpose This study aims to advance mixed methods as a research methodology in accounting through three research objectives: develop a typology of mixed methods research (MMR) features from current literature, analyse accounting papers published in two leading South African journals against these features, and offer recommendations for best practice going forward. Design/methodology/approach This paper follows five elements for a MMR review study: identify the methodological aim and choice of discipline; identify the relevant accounting MMR literature and collect the data; develop a codebook and analysis procedures to assess the reviewed papers against; report on the MMR findings; and discuss the findings and make recommendations. Findings The use of MMR as a methodological approach is increasing; however, in many instances published papers revealed limited methodological detail. Furthermore, most accounting MMR studies use a convergent MMR design, with data collected qualitatively using interviews/focus groups and quantitatively using questionnaires. Finally, accounting education studies is the topic within accounting research that mostly use MMR. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to a five-year period and the prevalence of applicable MMR articles during that period in two journals. Practical implications This paper presents advantages of using MMR in accounting studies and offer recommendations for best practice to answer the complex accounting research questions of today. Originality/value This study is the first systematic examination of how mixed methods is used in accountancy research as reflected in South African journals.

Purpose: Given the importance of valuations in business rescue and the vague guidance provided by the Companies Act 71 of 2008, the study analyses valuation-related disclosure in published business rescue plans (PPs) in South Africa (SA). The main objective of the paper, in addition to being exploratory of actual practices, was to highlight a need for improvements in the Companies Act legislation to support more consistent practices. Design: A quantitative content analysis was done of 55 PPs between 2013 and 2018, using descriptive content analysis and inferential statistical techniques. Findings: Primarily, the list of material assets were disclosed at accounting book values in PPs, and liquidation values were mostly independently determined. PPs described various risks relating to the implementation of the PP; however, the PPs mostly lacked calculations of how the risk will affect the business rescue value. On average, the business rescue value exceeded the liquidation value with 36.4 cents for concurrent creditors compared to 33.7 and 21.2 cents for preferent and secured creditors, respectively. Notably, when the PP included a sale of the business, offers received were, on average, 2.5 times the liquidation value and represented 57% of the book value of the company’s assets at the time. Practical implications: The study suggests improvements to the Companies Act to support more consistent valuation-related disclosure in PPs in SA, in particular, the disclosure of the valuation basis used, the average business rescue premium and offers relative to asset values. Such disclosure would provide evidence to investors on the sound potential of investing in a financially distressed company in SA but, at the same time, set realistic sale expectations for both creditors, BRPs and shareholders. Originality: In view of limited empirical evidence on business rescue prices, the article presents the results of original research in this field.

Purpose: Financial reporting guidance such as the Conceptual Framework for the Presentation of Financial statements (CF), together with specific International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) such as International Accounting Standards no. 1 (IAS 1), require an assessment of whether a company can be considered a going concern at the time of preparing its annual financial statements. According to the Companies Act, no. 71 of 2008 (Companies Act), a company in financial distress may file for temporary business rescue protection in order to reorganise its affairs to continue to exist on a solvent basis (return to solvency [RTS]) or, if that is not possible, to offer a better settlement to creditors or shareholders, than under immediate liquidation (better settlement than under immediate liquidation [BSIL]). Building on prior qualitative research in this area, this paper quantitatively investigates the temporal going concern status in the context of a South African company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) while under business rescue. Design: The paper follows a quantitative cross-sectional design using a purposive nonprobability sampling method. Empirical data were collected from accounting and business rescue experts using a structured self-administered questionnaire. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics to detect patterns of association between variables of interest. Findings: The paper presents quantitative empirical evidence supporting prior qualitative research on business rescue context-specific indicators of going concern. In particular, if a South African listed company files for business rescue protection, the company may not be regarded as a going concern, for annual financial reporting purposes, up to the adoption or rejection of a business rescue plan. Furthermore, the evidence shows that when a business rescue plan is adopted that aims to offer a BSIL, the company cannot be considered to be a going concern during the business rescue proceedings. Moreover, should a business rescue practitioner aim for an RTS, the evidence shows that the company can only be likely regarded as a going concern when the business rescue plan is substantially implemented. Value: Management and auditors should note that in the case of a BSIL, the evidence presented implies an underlying assumption other than the going concern assumption. This is also implied in the case of an RTS aim prior to the substantial implementation of the business rescue plan. In the absence of any other defined underlying assumption, the liquidation basis is the de facto alternative. Moreover, the underlying assumption in an RTS will also likewise be the liquidation basis in the absence of another defined underlying assumption. Standard-setters should take note of the need to provide more guidance on the matter.

No abstract