Have you ever wondered what happens when you go bankrupt? This article looks at the general process and effect of bankruptcy in New Zealand as well as the effect on a student loan.

The general process and effect of bankruptcy

The process of bankruptcy in New Zealand is set out in the Insolvency Act 2006 (‘the Act’). The Act also provides for an additional formal alternative to bankruptcy, known as the “No Asset Procedure”.

The fact a person is living overseas does not automatically preclude them from being able to be made bankrupt under New Zealand law.

Bankruptcy

There are two ways a person can be adjudicated bankrupt – on the application of a creditor or the debtor can file for adjudication himself or herself.

In terms of the latter, if the combined debts of a debtor amount to $1,000 or more, he or she can apply to be adjudicated bankrupt. There are certain steps which need to be followed which are set out in the Act.

Once the court makes the order of adjudication, the debtor’s bankruptcy commences. It usually lasts three years but normally remains on a person’s credit record for up to 7 years.

The appointed Assignee will advertise the order or adjudication in the Gazette, on the Insolvency and Trustee Service and in the local newspaper.

The general effect of bankruptcy includes:

(a) Once the debtor has been adjudicated bankrupt, most of the bankrupt’s property vests in the Official Assignee, whether in or outside New Zealand, and the bankrupt’s rights in the property are extinguished. The powers that the bankrupt could have exercised in, over, or in respect of any property (whether in or outside New Zealand) for the bankrupt’s own benefit vest in the Assignee. The Official Assignee can therefore seize and sell the bankrupt’s property.

(b) The debtor may retain certain assets, such as tools of trade and necessary household furniture. However, the bankrupt can only retain these assets up to a maximum value. The maximum value for these assets is fixed in the Assignee’s discretion. The bankrupt may also retain a motor vehicle, the value of which must not exceed $6,000. In addition, property held in trust is not affected by the bankruptcy.

(c) The bankrupt must inform the Assignee about his or her property and provide various financial records, including disclosing any property acquired during the bankruptcy, such as a prize or an inheritance.

(d) The assignee can investigate past financial transactions and can retrieve gifts made within a certain timeframe.

(e) Unsecured creditors (secured debt is excluded from bankruptcy) are precluded from continuing to personally pursue the bankrupt for any debt included in the bankruptcy or to add penalties/interest to the debt. All proceedings to recover any debt provable in the bankruptcy are halted.

(f) Unsecured creditors can however prove their claims against the debtor, and the Official Assignee will distribute the bankrupt’s assets among them based on these claims (if there are sufficient funds to do so) in order of a set priority.

(g) The Official Assignee will also decide whether the bankrupt needs to make regular repayments to help repay their creditors.

(h) Creditors that are not based in NZ will be sent a report if they are listed in the bankruptcy. A bankrupt can include that debt in their bankruptcy. A creditor may prove for any debt due to him or her from the bankrupt, no matter whether the debt is governed by New Zealand law or foreign law. A foreigner proving for a foreign debt stands in the same position as a New Zealand creditor proving for a New Zealand debt.

(i) The bankrupt will need the Official Assignee’s permission to, inter alia:

1. take part in the management or control of any business, to be self-employed, or to be employed by a relative or a relative’s business; and

2. travel overseas (the bankrupt can return to New Zealand but if they want to leave again they will need to apply for permission).

(j) The bankrupt also needs to advise the Official Assignee if they change their name, address, employment, terms of employment or income/expenditure.

(k) The public register (of bankruptcies) can be searched from overseas. This may therefore affect a bankrupt’s credit rating outside of NZ.

No assets procedure

To be eligible for the No Asset procedure a person must have debt between $1,000 and $47,000, no realisable assets (excluding cash up to $1000, motor vehicle up to $6000, tools of trade and personal and household effects) and for whatever reason have no way to pay any of their debts.

It has the effect of preventing unsecured creditors from taking steps to enforce debts against the affected person that are included in the procedure. It does not however apply to student loans.

It lasts for 12 months although remains on one’s credit record for longer (it currently remains on the insolvency register for up to 4 years). It does not have as many restrictions as bankruptcy but it does impact one’s credit rating.

The effect of bankruptcy on a student loan

When a person becomes bankrupt, their student loan is written off by the Inland Revenue Department.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance, please contact Kris Morrison at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) krismorrison@parryfield.com

Social enterprises often operate as limited liability companies, but new legal structures to govern them have been introduced in a number of countries. Lawyer Steven Moe argues we need these options in New Zealand.

In the classic children’s story by Hans Christian Andersen, an emperor is given new clothes which are invisible to those who are unfit to see them. So no-one dares tell him he isn’t wearing anything at all. That’s a bit like the current legal structures available for someone who has an idea to start a new venture which incorporates purpose beyond making profit – they are faced with a difficult choice. Do they become a company, which carries assumptions that it is for profit, with less focus on social good? Or a charity, which carries assumptions that it is not-for-profit, focusing on helping others.

Neither really fit a “social enterprise” the term used to describe businesses that act for both profit and purpose. Social enterprises combine entrepreneurial spirit with a strong dose of ‘heart’ as they work to make a real difference in our world. And it is not just part of a temporary trend. The 1,600 people who assembled last month in Christchurch at the Social Enterprise World Forum demonstrate that.

But how should social enterprises set themselves up? Would a legal structure created for these ventures help?

Let’s walk for a minute down each of the usual roads taken to map out that answer. Choosing a company structure has advantages because it is well known, and provides a return of profit to the founder through dividends or selling shares. Investors are easier to attract, although they probably won’t understand a business that exists for more than profit. And, in fact, directors may feel a legal obligation to maximise shareholder returns. While the purpose-driven company may solve a critical social or environmental problem, otherwise addressed by expensive government programmes, it will be hard to access any funding from that source as they will not be a charity, which is usually required.

Down the other fork in the road, a charity may offer the ability to access grant funding, although the danger is that it may come or go. People assume a charity is doing good, and an advantage that flows from such an assumption (if it meets strict charitable purposes) is that donations are tax deductible. However, despite years of a founder’s blood, sweat and tears – which every new venture requires – the founder will not be able to have private gain, apart from a market rate salary.

Neither option truly suits our social entrepreneur, a conclusion explored in detail in the recent Ākina Foundation paper about the inadequacy of current legal structures (check it out here). What would help is a “Social Enterprise Company”, a new legal structure which takes the best of both roads described above, as well as a dash of learning from Scotland, Canada and the USA where these structures already exist. Increased legitimacy would result as the purpose is baked into the DNA through clear statements in the constitution, reporting on how it is travelling (to prevent abuse), and the ability to return capped dividends to shareholders so profits go back into the purpose.

What’s the pitch to government on the case for change? We will end up with tax paying companies, that are also uniquely positioned to give back to their communities in ways that improve the environment, or care for disadvantaged social groups as they combine both making profit and acting with purpose. This new legal structure would ensure that when that light bulb moment happens, social entrepreneurs don’t need to reach for the number 8 wire in order to adapt, and then make do with the ill-fitting legal forms that currently exist. Social enterprises need ‘new clothes’ that fit better than the current legal structures we have.

All of us want to lead lives of purpose and meaning, and more businesses are seeking to position themselves in that direction as the old paradigms are tossed off the throne that profit and private wealth creation is king. New Zealand has the chance to be a true world leader through a new social enterprise legal structure that other countries would look to as an example, and which the next generations that follow us demand.

Steven Moe has a free e-book available, Social Enterprises in New Zealand. For a copy email stevenmoe@parryfield.com

This article by Steven Moe originally appeared on The Spin Off

Restraint of Trade and Conflict of Interest Clauses

Restraint of Trade Clauses

There is a legal assumption that a restraint of trade is unenforceable unless the employer can prove they have a legitimate proprietary interest and that the restraint of trade is reasonable with regard to the circumstances. This typically requires the employer to establish a link between their proprietary interest and the duties and responsibilities of the employee who deals with those interests and the risk of breach. If the employer has proven these two elements, the burden then falls to the employee to show that the restraint is contrary to their personal interest and the general public interest.

The definition of proprietary interest includes three main categories: trade or customer connections, the stability of the employer’s workforce, and trade secrets.

When considering whether a restraint of trade is reasonable, the Court will consider the context of the whole of the agreement between the parties and against the background of the circumstances in which the contract was entered into. In general, a restraint of trade will be reasonable where it grants adequate, but no more than adequate, protection for an employer.

Reasonableness – Duration and Geographical Location

When determining reasonableness, the Court will additionally consider how long the restraint of trade lasts for. When considering the validity of the restraint’s duration, the Court will look at the facts and circumstances of the relevant company’s business, the nature of the interest to be protected, and the potential effect of an ex-employee opening their own business. Industry practice will also be taken into account. In general, the Court will rarely find a restraint of trade clause that lasts for longer than one year to be reasonable.

The geographical coverage of a restraint of trade is also relevant when determining reasonableness. Worldwide restrictions are typically found to be invalid, unless the restriction requires worldwide coverage to be reasonably effectual. The Court has upheld restraint of trade clauses where worldwide coverage was necessary because of the nature of the industry in question and the impracticalities of enforcing a less onerous restraint of trade clause; however, this is the exception, rather than the general rule.

Consideration

If an employee signs an employment agreement containing a restraint of trade provision, it is assumed there is consideration for the restraint of trade as this was part of the bargaining process. Therefore, a restraint of trade included in an employment agreement at the outset will not necessarily be unreasonable.

Restraint of Trade Clauses – Court Powers and Contracting Out of the Court’s Jurisdiction

If a party cannot prove that a restraint of trade clause is enforceable, the Court has a jurisdiction to alter a restraint of trade to make it enforceable or to delete it from the employment agreement. This typically involves reducing the geographical coverage and/or the duration of the restraint. We are unsure whether parties can later agree to alter an invalidated restraint to make it enforceable, as we have not been able to find any case law on this point.

If the Court finds that an employee has breached a valid restraint of trade clause, it may require the ex-employee to pay exemplary and/or compensatory damages. It may also issue an injunction preventing an ex-employee from carrying out the conduct which constitutes a breach of the restraint of trade.

Conflict of Interest Clauses

Case law seems to be silent as to the effect of conflict of interest clauses after the termination of an employment agreement. Therefore, if an employment agreement does not mention the effect of a conflict of interest clause post-employment, there is an argument that the conflict of interest clause no longer applies.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance with this, or with any other Employment matters, please contact Hannah Carey – hannahcarey@parryfield.com or any of the team at Parry Field Lawyers should you need assistance – 03348 8480

Relief Against Forfeiture

Under section 261 of the Property Law Act 2007 (“PLA”), where a party has received notice of refusal to renew a lease, they may apply to the Court for relief under section 264 of the PLA. Applications must be made within 3 months of the lessee receiving notice of the refusal to renew the lease.

Section 264 of the PLA allows the Court to make an order which extends or renews the lease. The Court may also require the lessor to enter into a new lease with the lessee. Expenses, damages and compensation may also be awarded by the Court in respect of the above orders.

If the lessor has already leased the premises to someone else, or made a disposition which an order under section 264 would prejudice, the Court may still make an order under section 264; however, it may also choose to cancel or postpone the new estate or interest belonging to the third party, and assess and order damages or compensation. This may be payable by either the lessor or the lessee individually, or by them both jointly.

When considering whether to grant a renewal of the lease, the Court will take 7 factors into account:

Reasons for the failure to give notice – e.g. whether the failure to renew was inadvertent;
Whether the cause of the default was due to any action of the landlord;
The lessee’s conduct, in particular whether it has complied with all conditions/covenants and has been a good tenant;
The prejudice to the lessee if the relief is not granted;
The prejudice to the lessor if the relief is not granted;
The lessor’s motivation for the refusal to renew and understanding of the lessee’s intentions; and
The interests of third parties and how they might be affected by any order.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation.

Contact Kris Morrison at krismorrison@parryfield.com

State Integrated Schools are a kind of school recognised by New Zealand’s education system, but their structure can be confusing to understand.

What are State Integrated Schools?

New Zealand’s education system allows for a range of different types of schools. The four main categories are State Schools, State Integrated Schools, Charter Schools and Private Schools.

State Integrated Schools are a kind of special character school that allows for collaboration between the government and a private proprietor in a way that preserves the special character of the proprietor and the school.

Every state integrated school has an integration agreement between its Proprietor and the government which sets out various details about the intended operation of the school, and includes a description of the particular or general religious or philosophical beliefs that provide the framework for the education at the school.

Types of Special Character Schools that have been established in New Zealand include Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Adventist, Jewish, Muslim, Steiner, Montessori and non-denominational Christian schools.

Often the parents of children at a state integrated school struggle to understand who is responsible for leading and operating a state integrated school. It can be confusing when information and invoices relating to the school come from a variety of different sources.

Who governs State Integrated Schools?

The governance structure for Integrated schools can be confusing because they have more than one person or body with decision making power. The main decision makers are:

The Board of Trustees

Each state school (including state integrated schools) has a Board of Trustees, which is a body corporate incorporated under the Education Act 1989, and is a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004.

The Board of Trustees is the governing body of its school, and is responsible for the governance of the school, including setting the policies by which the school is to be controlled and managed. Its primary objective in governing the school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement.

The Board of Trustees is required under the Education Act 1989 to ensure that the school is a physically and emotionally safe place for all students and staff; and is inclusive of and caters for students with differing needs. It must have particular regard to any statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, and must comply with specified obligations in the Education Act 1989 relating to curriculum statements and national performance measures, teaching and learning programmes, and monitoring of student performance. if the school is a member of a community of learning that has a community of learning agreement, it must comply with its obligations under that agreement.

The Board of Trustees is made up of the principal, several parent elected representatives, a staff representative, a student representative. In the case of state integrated schools, the Proprietor of the school has the right to appoint a number of trustees to sit on the Board of Trustees along with the other trustees.

The Board of Trustees of a state integrated school operates in mostly the same manner as the Board of Trustees of any other state school, but must operate in a manner that reflects the special character of the school, and must consult with the Proprietor on various matters.

The Principal

The school’s principal is the chief executive of the Board of Trustees in relation to the school’s control and management.

The Principal must comply with the law of New Zealand and the Board of Trustees’ general policy directions, but otherwise has complete discretion to manage as the principal thinks fit the school’s day-to-day administration.

The Principal of a state integrated school operates in mostly the same manner as the Principal of any other state school, but must manage the school in a manner that reflects the special character of the school and, if the school has a religious special character, may be required to have willingness and an ability to take part in religious instruction appropriate to that school .

The Proprietor

The school’s Proprietor owns or leases the land and buildings used by the school and is responsible for any loans or funding in relation to the land and buildings. The Proprietor must plan for and ensure that the buildings and facilities are brought up to at least the minimum standard specified by the Secretary of Education for state schools.

The Proprietor has the right and the responsibility to supervise the maintenance and preservation of the education with a special character provided by the school and to determine what is necessary to preserve and safeguard that special character.

If the Proprietor believes that the special character of school has been or is likely to be jeopardised it can exercise various powers under the Education Act, including a power to cancel the integration agreement with the government (but it must consult with the government before doing so).

The Board of Trustees and Principal must give the Proprietor access to the school at all reasonable times to ensure that the special character of the school is being maintained.

Who Owns State Integrated Schools?

The land and buildings of a state integrated school are owned and maintained by the Proprietor, which is often a charitable trust or Church or other religious organisation. The day to day operations of the school are funded by the government through the Ministry of Education. The government pays staff salaries and an operations grant for the running of the school, and gives some funding directly to the proprietor for maintenance and improvement of the buildings.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit being given back to the source. Contact Kris Morrison at krismorrison@parryfield.com to request this or for any other questions. Copyright © Parry Field Lawyers 2017.