This morning I attended a “critical issues” update at the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce today where the Christchurch Mayor spoke. Lianne Dalziel had a number of observations that she shared about where things were at with the Canterbury rebuild 6 years after the Christchurch earthquake and just a few days after the Port Hills Fires.

She identified the chance to “reimagine Christchurch” at this time. She referred to this video by the Christchurch airport which can be accessed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqoTxbIANQ0 and noted that the themes there were that this was a region to “grow, connect, find balance”. She wanted to build on that so Christchurch became known as a “City of Opportunity”.

She talked about the need to ensure the city was connected with the wider region while the Canterbury region had better access to the city. She mentioned the word “resilience” and how this was an important theme for Christchurch and would be emphasised going forward. This had been shown once again by the Port Hills fires.

She concluded by noting that Christchurch was founded in 1856 by royal charter but as one of the oldest cities it had the chance to actually become one of the newest cities in New Zealand through the rebuild. She welcomed the Singularity University that had taken place a few months ago as a challenge for the future. How would innovation impact the future of the city as technology improved things – particularly with the growth of AI. It will definitely be interesting to see how the Canterbury rebuild can integrate some of those new approaches which will be coming in the future and will impact society and how we live in a city – from the perspective of transport, housing, environment, retail and businesses.

This is a book about social enterprise which is a really interesting and challenging read. I think it will be relevant to a lot of people involved in charities and not for profits as well as those looking to start one. There are a lot of concepts and thoughts in this book which align well with many of our social enterprise clients (even if many of our clients may not realise that is what they are). The traditional words for them have been “not for profit” or “charity” and they probably have never called themselves “social enterprises” but that is really what they are!

So turning to the book it is “different” in a few distinctive ways. For one, when I bought it the person at the store said, “How much do you want to pay?” It seems that you can choose the price. The money then goes towards funding “Thankyou” which is the organisation the author co-founded. On a communication from them when I joined their newsletter it says about this price: “It’s sold at a pay what you want price to fund the future of Thankyou and so far, has crowd-funded the launch of Thankyou New Zealand! WIN!”

The other distinctive is when you open the book all the text is opposite to the usual format for a book. It runs from left to right across the page so you have to turn it 90 degrees onto its side and read it almost like a flip chart. So from the outset you can tell that the author is trying to do something different. Trying to challenge the status quo. He acknowledges this a little later when talking about this format:

“Once you get out of your comfort zone, you begin to actually ask questions – and you start thinking and challenging what you’ve always accepted as the norm. The reality is that stepping out is uncomfortable. Even as you read this book ‘the wrong way around’ in airport lounges, on public transport, on you way to school or work or around friends, there’s a chance you’ll feel uncomfortable. Why? Because there is the possibility that people will notice your re doing something differently. We live in a world where we can blend in fairly easily, that is until the moment you take a risk and attempt something that perhaps no one has done before.”

The story itself centres on three young people who had an idea in Australia that has resulted in “Thankyou”. They started it when they were just 19 years old. The back cover describes what they did as beginning with the world water crisis and how to end it but that “has developed into award-winning consumer goods brand that empowers millions of people to fight poverty with every munch of muesli, sip of water or pump of hand wash”.

Essentially they brand around 35 products and then the funds raised from the sale of those products goes to support, for example, water projects in Africa (from sale of water), health projects (from sale of body care products) and food programs (from sale of food products). You can read more about them online at https://thankyou.co/. As noted above it looks like they will be launching in NZ soon.

The book is called Chapter One because the author acknowledges up front that their story is just beginning. He uses that as an encouragement to try and say that we can try things as well because they are just at the start of their journey. He plans to write a “Chapter 2” in a few years time when they are further down the road. The opening page makes this a call to be included on their journey as he writes, “Our world doesn’t need another book; it needs an idea that could change the course of history. Write with us.” He writes later:

“This book is written as we go, to show you that any one individual, any group of people, can make their ideas and dreams a reality. You may not have ‘made it’ yet (and neither have we), but everything we have learned along the way we want to share with you, In the hope that it will encourage you, inspire you and empower you.”

The 13 chapters have catchy headings like “Turning stumbling blocks into stepping stones”, and “Build a great team to achieve a great dream”. In each chapter anecdotes and stories are told about the experiences of the author. What I found helpful was the honesty about their journey – not trying to pretend that they have “made it” but instead writing in a way to try and encourage others to try something new. The book is full of challenges to the status quo and trying to do things differently. An example of this is the following quote:

“Some people don’t think the game will ever change. But it always does. And if you aren’t convinced the game will change, it’s probably best to keep those thoughts to yourself, otherwise years later you might find yourself mentioned in a quote like this: “the iPhone is nothing but a niche product” – then CEO of Nokia in 2008.”

There are many quotes like this and there are several direct reference to New Zealand as well. For example, when describing why they want to launch Thankyou in New Zealand he writes:

“We want to empower New Zealanders, the way we’ve empowered Australians, to show the world that consumers have the power to change stuff. Many of the biggest brands in the world trial ideas in New Zealand because it’s widely known that if a concept works in New Zealand, it will work globally. So we’ve invited New Zealand to help take this movement to the next level. The thing is, we’re not just launching Thankyou Australia into New Zealand. Instead, we’re launching Thankyou New Zealand from scratch. We’ll be setting up a local team, local suppliers and local impact partners. Coinciding with this book arriving on shelves, we launched our boldest and most ambitious campaign yet, inviting both Australians and New Zealanders to make a choice – to either help launch Thankyou New Zealand or not to. Will it work? We can’t guarantee that it will. But I love this thought: if it does, then together two of the smallest countries in the world (at times underestimated), who both bat above their weight globally in sport, entertainment and music, could go not to do something the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

Is this book a world changer? No. But that would be too much to ask of anything. What it does provide is a call to move in the right direction. What is needed is for many people to start questioning the way things have always been done and this book is good because it does that. It also is empowering because it shares a journey that the author is just starting which makes it seem more possible to join in some way. Perhaps the sentiment was best summed up in one of my favourite books as a child, “The Lorax”, where Dr Seuss ends with the following lines:

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

And that is really the theme of this book too. We need to care. We need to demand change. We need to be the change. I would recommend this book to people who are looking for an inspiring and ultimately challenging read. It will definitely be interesting to see how Thankyou goes in New Zealand since we will have a front row seat on their launch here.

Review by Steven Moe, Parry Field Lawyers

One of the key questions for any start up – whether in the charitable or social enterprise arena or not – is what the best structure is to reduce the potential liability for directors/trustees.

We would recommend using the structure of a Charitable Trust. It is created by execution of a Deed of Trust, but can then be incorporated as an incorporated Charitable Trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

While there are other options such as an Incorporated Society, the charitable trust route is the process we usually follow.

Once the trust is incorporated, it is a legal person separate from the Trustees, and can enter into contracts and other obligations as its own legal person (under the Common Seal of the incorporated Trust). This means that the trustees do not personally need to be parties to the contracts it enters.

Under this structure, the liability of the Trustees personally would be somewhat analogous to the liability of directors of a Company (who do owe some duties to the Company and its creditors but not direct personal liability for Company actions), but is not clearly stated in the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. It should also be possible to obtain professional indemnity insurance for the Trustees as officers of the trust.

Every situation is unique and we would be happy to discuss your particular situation with you because what is right for one organisation may not work so well in another context.

Please note that this article is not intended to be legal or investment advice, and is only intended as a general guide. Reliance should not be placed on this article where any specific issues are concerned.

One theme often comes up again and again for charities, not-for-profits and social enterprises relates to how the organisation will be governed. This same issue applies whether the particular involvement is in education, relief of poverty, youth work, the arts or some other worthy cause. Governance structures are of critical importance.

Different organisations have different approaches to governance and the appointment of those in charge. Below we have described some of the options which are open when considering how to structure a board or governance body.

These represent what we consider to be the most commonly used methods for governance as well as the pros and cons of each for you to consider. Obviously this is an overview document so there are many factors to think through but we hope this will provide a good sense of the options.

Governance Structures Option 1: Trustees appoint Trustees

Overview: When a vacancy or specific need becomes apparent, the Trust identifies a possible trustee and a working relationship is begun. The Board appoints trustees to fill vacancies or as additional trustees. This is then approved at next AGM by those attending / members. Often there are provisions that at each AGM one fifth of Trustees are to retire (longest serving first).

It is fairly common for Charitable Trusts to have an appointment process like this that gives the power of appointment to the current trustees but gives a veto right to another defined group.

Positive:

Trustees retain control over who is approached.
Board can appoint trustees directly.
AGM involved in process so two levels of approval are required.

Negative:

Process not always followed well creating possible irregularity in the appointment of trustees.
Less involvement of wider community.

Potential for incoming trustees to shift the focus of the Trust over time without any control mechanism to preserve original vision.

Governance Structures Option 2: Trustee Elections

Overview: Election of Trustees at each AGM so public call for nominations before that.

Positive:

Wider community involvement in process.
Greater potential pool of trustees with diverse experience.

Negative:

Uncertainty as to background of potential candidates and understanding of special character.
External engagement required eg advertising vacancies.

Governance Structures Option 3: Hybrid Model

Overview: Provide for election of some Trustees from certain backgrounds eg one Trustee appointed by employees. Others to be appointed by combination of above eg election / Trustees choose who to appoint.

Positive:

Incorporates elements that are positive in above examples eg diversity, involvement in process, ability to choose some trustees.
Has more checks and balances.

Negative:

More complex appointment process may be harder to administer.
Some voters may not have a strong connection with any special character.

Reflections on these options

In our experience the most common structure is for the existing trustees to have the power to appoint replacement trustees. The simplicity of this approach is one of the key reasons for its popularity.

In some cases, the trustees’ power of appointment is subject to a right of veto granted in favour of the group or entity that originally established the Charitable Trust. This is a viable approach and reduces the risk that the incoming trustees may over time shift the focus of the Trust.

Having elected trustees is more akin to an Incorporated Society model where members of the society elect Board members from time to time. The main negative of this approach is the complexity it adds to the appointment process. If notice deadlines are missed by the trustees, irregularities will arise in the appointment of trustees.

In considering which approach to adopt, the trustees should also take into account the different roles a Trust performs – governance vs administration/upkeep of properties etc.

Every situation is unique. We hope this short summary of some common options is helpful and would be happy to discuss any of them with you in more detail than can be contained in this overview.

As from 16 March 2017, certain changes are being made to the Protection of Person Property Rights Act 1988 (‘the PPPR Act’), as well as the accompanying Regulations, which will affect Enduring Powers of Attorney (‘EPOA’).

Some of these changes affect the making of an EPOA, while others affect how existing and new EPOA’s will operate.

This article provides a brief overview of the upcoming changes.

Different forms

As from the “go-live” date, all new EPOAs will need to be made via new, plain language on-line forms. Previous standard forms will not be able to be used. Existing EPOA’s are not however affected by this change.

The forms are designed to be easier to understand and will:

Be in PDF style;
Have tick box options;
Be in an on-line format;
Include a notes section and glossary;
Have info sections alongside the left hand side; and
Include option sections.

Mutual EPOAs

Previous changes to Enduring Powers of Attorney brought confusion as to when one solicitor/legal executive/trustee corporation could witness the signature of two people making mutual EPOAs (i.e. a husband and wife appointing each other as their attorney).

A witness was required to be independent of each attorney so, where they had previously acted for both a husband and a wife, this could prevent them witnessing both signatures. This often necessitated the involvement of another law firm resulting in additional time and cost or, in smaller centers, difficulty in getting an EPOA completed.

While some further changes were subsequently made to try and address these issues, there was still uncertainty about what the witnessing requirements meant and how they should be carried out in practice. They were also applied differently across law firms/trustee corporations.

The new changes now mean that one solicitor/legal executive/trustee corporation can witness the signature of both donors (the person making the EPOA) in the case of mutual appointments so long as the witness is satisfied that doing so does not constitute “more than a negligible risk of a conflict of interest”. In other words, so long as the interests of the parties making the EPOA (or the witness and the parties) do not conflict or there is only an insignificant risk of any conflict, one witness may act for both.

Consultation requirements

Currently an attorney (the person who has the right to make decisions in respect to someone’s property or care and welfare) must consult, if practicable, the donor and any other person specified in the EPOA.

Likewise, if different attorneys are appointed for property and care and welfare, each must consult the other regularly.

Now any Attorney must also consult any other attorney under the EPOA, as well as any other attorney appointed under another EPOA.

This does not include any “successor attorney” which is an attorney who steps in if an earlier attorney can no longer act (i.e. they die, step down).

This change applies to new and existing EPOAs. If you are currently acting under an EPOA therefore, you will need to ensure that you consult, if practicable, the person who made the EPOA, any person specified by the donor in the EPOA, and all other attorneys, whether they act in respect to the donor’s care and welfare or their property or both.

Medical certificate

An attorney cannot act under an EPOA which only takes effect when a person loses mental capacity until either a relevant health practitioner has certified, or the Court has determined, that the donor is mentally incapable.

Likewise, an Attorney under a Care and Welfare EPOA, cannot act in respect to a “significant matter” until the same has happened.

Currently a certificate as to mental capacity must be in the prescribed form. As from March 2017, this is changing to a requirement that it must simply contain the prescribed information. This means a particular form does not have to be used so long as it contains certain required information.

Cancelling the appointment of one attorney where there are attorneys with “several” authority

A person may make an EPOA which appoints more than one attorney with what is known as “several” or “joint and several” authority. This means that the attorney can, in theory, act independently of the other attorney(s).

The changes now make it clear that, if the donor cancels the appointment of one of the attorneys while mentally capable of doing so, the EPOA remains in effect so long as there is at least 1 remaining attorney.

Cancelling an EPOA

To cancel an EPOA it is not enough to simply write or state that an EPOA is cancelled (revoked).

The new changes provide that, if a new EPOA states that it revokes an earlier EPOA and both are “of the same kind”, they both have effect until the earlier is revoked by notice (or cancelled under certain conditions specified in the PPPR Act).

Notice means giving a copy of the later EPOA to the earlier Attorney(s). That notice however can be given by someone other than the donor, such as a solicitor or a friend, including down the track in the event that the donor becomes mentally incapable.

This section also applies to EPOAs made before March 2017. If you want to cancel an existing EPOA therefore, you will need to ensure that the new EPOA is given to your previous Attorneys.

“Same kind” means:

both EPOAs relate to the donor’s property or donor’s care and welfare; or
if the earlier EPA relates to the donor’s property or the donor’s care and welfare or both, the later relates to both.

If you have previously been hesitant to make an EPOA due to time and cost or you simply haven’t yet got around to it, it is good time to reconsider. The changes we have outlined are aimed at making it easier to make an EPOA.

If you don’t have an EPOA, managing your affairs can be extremely difficult. Family and friends don’t have an automatic right to make decisions on your behalf. In most cases, if you want someone else to have authority to handle your affairs you need to arrange that ahead of time. If you become incapacitated without an EPOA in place, your family and/or friends must apply to the Family Court before they can do anything to help with your affairs. This takes time and is considerably more expensive than making an EPOA. It may also provoke family tensions as family members may not always agree on who should be appointed. The Court may also appoint someone who you don’t wish to make decisions on your behalf.

If you already have EPOAs, now is also a good time to review them to make sure that they still reflect your wishes. Likewise, if you have been appointed an attorney and there have been changes in your donor’s capacity, it may be a timely opportunity to consider seeking a medical certificate.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Please contact Ken Lord at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) kenlord@parryfield.com

Introduction

So you have a great idea that just might make a difference in the world, but are wondering about how to formalise a legal structure that would help you do that? A charitable trust is one of the most commonly used options in New Zealand. This article describes the steps to set up a charitable trust and key points to consider.

Advantages of a charitable trust

A charitable trust can provide a number of advantages. For example:

Reputation: Funders and donors tend to gain comfort if the entity is a charitable trust (rather than a private business or individual). Where a company sets up a charitable trust and invites staff to participate, they will be motivated by the charitable purposes.
Tax status: There can be tax advantages in registering as a charitable trust with Charities Services (see below).
Longevity: A trust is not dependent on one individual and can go on long after the founder ceases to be involved, in “perpetuity” in fact.

Great examples of charitable trusts in New Zealand include World Vision, The New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation, and Ronald McDonald House.

Key points before setting up

To set up a charitable trust you will need a founding document for the Trust – called a Trust Deed. This is the legal document which sets out the key elements of the Trust. The questions you should answer before you see your lawyer are as follows:

What are your purposes? A charitable trust must be charitable. That may sound basic but it isn’t necessarily as easy as having a good idea – for example if you want to develop a new type of transport that is safer than a car then it sounds great but by itself that purpose won’t be “charitable”. You need to fall within one of the following categories to count as a charity:
Alleviate poverty: This does not just apply to the destitute but could be for those that fall below the ordinary standard of living. It could be achieved through financial means but also through practical means such as providing food and shelter;
Promote education: Whether something is deemed to be charitable under this category will depend on its usefulness and its educational value;
Promote religion: This is about the promotion of a wide range of spiritual teachings. Charitable purposes under this heading could range from the provision and maintenance of ministers/religious leaders to the provision of buildings for worship. However, it does not include just the promotion of certain ethics.
Other charitable purposes beneficial to the community: This in a way is a “catch-all” provision. It can include such purposes as the promotion of health and recreational facilities. However, a trust will not be deemed charitable under this category if it is not for some public benefit.

Whether your purposes will fit the definitions is something that we can discuss with you.

Practical considerations, cost and timing involved

Before you take the next steps it is worth knowing a few practical points, which include:

Writing the Trust Deed – particularly the charitable purposes can take a few weeks to get all trustees on board and an agreement. Important issues such as the statement of purposes, who hold the power to appoint and remove trustees, are best decided before the trust deed is signed.
Time frames involved to get decision – a few days for Companies Office, a few weeks/months for Charities Services.
Registering with Companies Office – this is a free application which must be signed by all trustees. In addition one trustee must sign a statutory declaration in support of the application and attach a certified copy of the trust deed.
Time frames for incorporation – 1-2 days once application documentation signed.
Cost for application – this is a free online application on the Charities Services website.
Application requirements – the application form is reasonably detailed. It must be accompanied by a statutory declaration from one of the trustee applicants. Charities Services, when considering your application, will want to see good evidence of the Trust’s existing or intended charitable activities so that it can satisfy itself the actual activities are genuinely charitable.
Time frames for registration – this can take up to three months from the time Charities Services receive application.
Time frame for tax exempt status – Charities Services should notify IRD directly once your charitable registration is approved, but it can take a few weeks for your trust to show up on the IRD’s list of donee organisations.
The availability of trustees to sign documents – this can depend on where your trustees are.

Summary

Although setting up a charitable trust can take time, it is often a most worthwhile structure to have in place. We have helped many charities over the years and would be happy to discuss your situation with you.

Our team is experienced with charities, social enterprises and trusts that are common in this area of law. We would be happy to assist you in your journey. For more information, please feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com or 021 761 292. We have free resources for start-ups, boards and companies including “Start-ups Legal Toolkit” which covers the key issues we see people face when starting out (it’s a free PDF guide in the resources section of this site).

Following the Kaikoura earthquake in 2016, EQC and private insurers advised that private insurers would act on behalf of EQC in receiving, assessing and settling home and contents claims arising from the earthquake, even those claims that were under the EQC cap. Customers were reassured however that this approach would not change their entitlements under their insurance policy or the Earthquake Commission Act (‘the Act’) and that insurers would receive training to ensure compliance with the Act.

Homeowners affected by the Kaikoura earthquake may well be wondering what exactly is the extent of their entitlement under the Act. This article considers that issue. For homeowners dealing with EQC in respect of the Canterbury earthquakes, please see our earlier article “EQC is repairing my home – what am I entitled to?”

What is the extent of EQC’s obligations?

If you have fire insurance, your home is secured against damage caused by natural disaster for its “replacement value” (generally up to a maximum of $100,000 plus GST).

Under the Act, this means that you are entitled to receive the costs “reasonably incurred” to replace or repair the damaged part or parts of your home to a condition which is “substantially the same as but not better or more extensive” than its condition “when new”.

In other words, you are not automatically entitled to repairs (or the cost of repairs) which give you a home which is better than what you would have had when it (or any part of it) was originally built. However, you are entitled (subject to certain conditions) to receive repaired property which is largely the same in appearance, quality and working order as it was “when new”.

Consequently, you are not limited to receiving what is known as an “indemnity” payment, whereby an insurer is only responsible for paying for the cost of repairing your home to the condition it was in before the damage (which in most cases will be less than new).

Does EQC have to cover the cost of ensuring the repairs comply with current building regulations?

Yes, as a general principle.

The EQC Act provides that:

· EQC’s obligation to pay to replace/repair a person’s home to a largely new condition (but not better or more extensive than what the home was like when new) is modified “as necessary to comply with any applicable laws” (which would include current building regulations).

· The cost of such compliance is EQC’s responsibility – EQC is responsible for paying any costs “reasonably incurred” to comply with any applicable laws in relation to the replacement or reinstatement of your home.

In other words, while in general EQC is not obliged to pay to repair your home to a condition which is better or more extensive than what it was like originally when new, this limitation is modified where it is necessary for the repairs to comply with any applicable laws.

Consequently, this means that you may end up with something which is better than what you had before. This is because, although your home (or part of it) may have complied with building regulations at the time it was built, this may not be the case now. Therefore EQC may have to pay for additional work to be done to ensure that any repair to the relevant part of your home complies with current regulations.

This may include paying the cost of upgrading non-earthquake damaged aspects if those aspects need to be upgraded as part of completing the repair of your earthquake damage. In other words, if your earthquake damage cannot legally be repaired without also upgrading non-earthquake damaged parts, EQC may be responsible to meet those costs too.

However, that doesn’t mean that your entire home has to be fully upgraded to comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code. In general, only the relevant repairs have to comply with the scope of the Building Code that applies to that particular type of repair. With the exception of such things as ﬁre safety, the balance of your home only needs to comply with the Building Code to the same extent as it did before the earthquake.

Be aware however that, if your home (or part of it) did not comply with building regulations at the time it was built or no building consent was obtained when required, you may have to contribute to the cost of any additional work required to ensure that your repairs comply with current building regulations. This is particularly if the failure to obtain a building consent/comply with the relevant regulations caused or increased the earthquake damage to your property.

Is EQC responsible for paying any other costs?

Yes. Under the Act, EQC is also responsible for paying any costs “reasonably incurred”:

· To demolish your home (or any part of it) and remove debris but only to the extent that such was required to enable your property to be repaired/replaced;and

· To pay architects’ fees, surveyors’ fees and council fees.

Are there repairs/damage EQC may not have to cover the cost of?

Possibly. EQC is only responsible under the Act for covering damage to your home which occurred “as a direct result of a natural disaster”. Consequently, if you have damage to your home which was not caused by the Kaikoura earthquake (e.g. pre-existing damage) but which is also being repaired as part of your earthquake repairs, you may have to meet the cost of that.

However, this is not always the case. If your earthquake damage cannot be repaired without the non-earthquake damage aspects also being addressed, EQC may still be responsible to pay (see point 2 above for example). Likewise, if pre-existing damage has been made worse by the earthquakes.

Correspondingly, if your home (or part of it) did not comply with building regulations at the time it was built or no building consent was obtained, you may have to contribute to the cost of any additional work required to ensure that your repairs comply with current building regulations (again see point 2 above).

Every situation is unique so please discuss your situation with a professional advisor who can provide tailored solutions to you.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Contact Paul Cowey at Parry Field Lawyers, paulcowey@parryfield.com (03 348 8480)

Different forms

Mutual EPOAs

Consultation requirements

Medical certificate

Cancelling the appointment of one attorney where there are attorneys with “several” authority

Cancelling an EPOA

What is the extent of EQC’s obligations?

Does EQC have to cover the cost of ensuring the repairs comply with current building regulations?

Is EQC responsible for paying any other costs?

Are there repairs/damage EQC may not have to cover the cost of?

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch

Rolleston

Hokitika

Different organisations have different approaches to governance and the appointment of those in charge. Below we have described some of the options which are open when considering how to structure a board or governance body.

These represent what we consider to be the most commonly used methods for governance as well as the pros and cons of each for you to consider. Obviously this is an overview document so there are many factors to think through but we hope this will provide a good sense of the options.

Governance Structures Option 1: Trustees appoint Trustees

Governance Structures Option 2: Trustee Elections

Governance Structures Option 3: Hybrid Model

Reflections on these options

Different forms

Mutual EPOAs

Consultation requirements

Medical certificate

Cancelling the appointment of one attorney where there are attorneys with “several” authority

Cancelling an EPOA

Advantages of a charitable trust

Key points before setting up

Other questions to answer

Practical considerations, cost and timing involved

Summary

What is the extent of EQC’s obligations?

Does EQC have to cover the cost of ensuring the repairs comply with current building regulations?

Is EQC responsible for paying any other costs?

Are there repairs/damage EQC may not have to cover the cost of?

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch

Rolleston

Hokitika