Contact

CDH announces two Director appointments to its award-winning Corporate & Commercial practice

Back to top

CDH announces two Director appointments to its award-winning Corporate & Commercial practice

Commercial law firm Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) welcomes two new senior appointments, effective 1 March 2021, with Ian Hayes and Brian Jennings joining the firm as Directors in its award-winning Corporate & Commercial practice.

5 Mar 2021 2 min read CDH Alert Article

At a glance

  • Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) has made two senior appointments, with Ian Hayes and Brian Jennings joining as Directors in the Corporate & Commercial practice.
  • Ian Hayes, ranked in Band One in Chambers Global, brings a strong reputation and extensive experience in M&A and corporate and commercial work across various sectors.
  • Brian Jennings has expertise in M&A and corporate law, with notable experience in advising on financial and operational restructurings and business disposals. His recent work includes advising on the disposal of Edcon's divisions to Foschini and Retailability.

Willem Jacobs, Director and National Head of CDH’s Corporate & Commercial practice says;

“I think we are all in agreement that 2020’s adverse bearing, and the ripple effect on our economic climate has presented unique challenges. Yet in a year that saw listed M&A activity decrease by almost 17%, CDH managed to increase its listed M&A deal flow by more than 22% – recently winning the DealMakers M&A Deal Flow award for the 11th time in 12 years. Excellence attracts excellence and we are pleased to welcome Ian back to the firm, together with Brian who joins us for the first time”.

Ranked in Band One in Chambers Global, Ian maintains an impressive reputation in the South African market, with an enviable portfolio of blue-chip clients in mining, telecoms, and the retail sector. His deals span the full ambit of M&A and corporate and commercial work including takeovers, structuring, and restructuring of business entities, IPOs, private equity acquisitions and disposals, and general corporate finance. 

Brian’s focus also lies in M&A and corporate and commercial law. During 2015 to 2019, he advised the Edcon Group on its financial and operation restructurings, including the cornerstone landlords’ agreement amongst Edcon’s major landlords and which converted rent to equity. Brian also advised Capitalworks on its disposal of Much Asphalt to AECI.  During 2020, Brian advised the business rescue practitioners of Edcon on the disposal of Edcon’s JET and Edgars divisions across South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, eSwatini, and Lesotho to Foschini and Retailability respectively.

CDH’s CEO, Brent Williams, said;

“We welcome Ian and Brian into the CDH family and wish them every success. Their talent will deepen the firm’s bench of experts and demonstrate our commitment to navigating through the current crises with our clients; to continue to offer our clients a balanced combination of excellence in practice and value for money; to exploring opportunities that may exist within the market; and to offering solutions that focus on long-term sustainability.”

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2025 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.

You might also be interested in

21 Nov 2024

Announcement: Effective date of Employment Equity Act Amendments

On 14 April 2023, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Employment Equity Amendment Act 4 of 2022 into law, amending the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Although no effective date has yet been proclaimed, there are unverified reports suggesting implementation may begin in January 2025. This cannot be confirmed at this time, and we will keep you informed of any official developments.

Employment Law

1 min read

18 Feb 2025

by Corné Lewis and Ledile Maloka

Show me the money

In the case of National Director of Public Prosecutions v Dhurgasamy JOL 60116 (GJ), the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) applied for a forfeiture order under section 53, alternatively section 50 read with section 48, of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA). The application sought to declare certain property, specifically USD 630,700 in cash seized at OR Tambo International Airport on 11 September 2018, forfeit to the state. The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg delivered judgment on 26 July 2023, granting the forfeiture order under section 50 of POCA. The court found that, on a balance of probabilities, the seized cash constituted the proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically violations of exchange control regulations and involvement in money laundering operations. The respondent failed to provide a credible explanation for the lawful origin of the funds, and his claims of obtaining the money through a loan for business purposes were unsubstantiated and lacked supporting evidence. The court noted inconsistencies and improbabilities in his account, leading to the conclusion that the funds were indeed derived from unlawful activities.

Dispute Resolution

2 min read

8 Apr 2025

by Yvonne Mkefa

Work-from-home warning in South Africa

Yvonne Mkefa, Director in the Employment Law practice, was recently featured in BusinessTech, discussing the shift from remote work back to the office in South Africa.

1 min read

12 Jun 2025

by Mariska Delport

Rule 56, default cures and fairness: SCA confirms substance over procedure in tax disputes

In Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Virgin Mobile South Africa (Pty) Ltd ZASCA 77 (4 June 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered important guidance on the procedural interplay between Rule 56 of the Tax Court Rules (Rules) and the requirement for condonation under Rule 52. This ruling provides important clarity on how late filings should be approached, particularly where the defaulting party acts within the grace period afforded under Rule 56.

Tax & Exchange Control

5 min read

17 Jun 2025

by Joe Whittle, Kananelo Sikhakhane and Khutso Mongadi

Unconscionability as a defence to on-demand guarantees

On-demand performance guarantees are a staple in construction and engineering projects due to their commercial function of ‘as good as cash’ security, providing employers with prompt and reliable security if contractors fail to meet their obligations. Demand guarantees are designed to be autonomous instruments. The guarantor’s obligation to pay arises upon presentation of a demand that complies with the guarantee’s terms, regardless of disputes under the underlying contract (the independence principle). The independence principle is the main charm of demand guarantees, as the South African courts have consistently upheld the independence of these guarantees, with fraud by the beneficiary being the only recognised exception to payment.

Construction & Engineering

5 min read

30 Oct 2024

by Kate Anderson and Keagan Hyslop

50/50 shareholders and oppressive conduct: When some shareholders are more equal than others

A fundamental principle of South African company law is “ majority rules ” – shareholders and directors are bound by the decisions of the majority even where such decisions are not in their interest. However, recognising the potential for unfair abuse of such a principle, the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) devised section 163, which allows a director or shareholder of a company to apply to court for relief from oppressive conduct of the company or a person related to it that unfairly disregards or prejudices the interests of the applicant. Section 163 therefore paints the picture of a majority shareholder abusing its ability to control the company to unfairly bully or oppress minority shareholders. But what happens if the shareholders are equals – can a 50/50 shareholder be oppressed by their equal? This was the question before the High Court in Van der Watt v Schoeman and Others 91 SA 531 (ECGq).

Corporate & Commercial Law

4 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline