Software as a Service, or SaaS, is a common model where third-party providers deliver software to customers. Rather than purchasing and installing their own software, customers may choose to pay a recurring subscription fee to access software hosted and maintained by the provider.

A SaaS agreement is a contract between the provider and its customer which sets out the commercial and legal terms on which the customer can access the software. A well-drafted SaaS agreement can help establish what the customer is paying for, how they can use the software and what happens if something goes wrong.

As each customer will have different needs, the terms of a SaaS agreement may vary depending on the client, the nature of the services being provided, and the scope of work required. However, most SaaS agreements will contain a number of core provisions and fundamental elements. This article outlines some of the key terms and considerations that should be included in a SaaS agreement.

What should a SaaS agreement include?

  • Services and access: Clearly describe the software being provided, any implementation or support services, the number of permitted users and any limitations on access.
  • Fees and subscriptions: Explain the pricing structure, including monthly or annual subscription fees, per-user charges, implementation costs, payment dates, renewals and any process for changing the fees.
  • Term and termination: Set out the commencement date, how long the subscription lasts, whether it renews automatically and when either party may terminate. The agreement should also explain what happens to outstanding fees, customer accounts and data after termination.
  • Intellectual property: Clarification that the provider retains ownership of the software and related intellectual property. The agreement should grant a licence to the customer to use the software during their subscription.
  • Confidentiality: Define what information is confidential, how each party may use and disclose it, and the measures required to protect it. The agreement should also specify any permitted disclosures, exclusions and how long the confidentiality obligations continue after termination.
  • Customer data, privacy and security: Set out who owns customer data, how the provider may use it, and what security measures the provider must maintain. The agreement should also address data retention, deletion or return of data when the agreement ends, and each party’s privacy obligations. This is particularly important where the provider stores or processes personal information, as the parties will need to consider their obligations under the Privacy Act 2020.
  • Limitation of Liability, warranties and obligations: Set out each party’s key obligations, including the provider’s responsibilities for delivering the service and the customer’s responsibilities for authorised use of the software. The agreement should also address any warranties, exclusions and limits on liability, including responsibility for unauthorised access, misuse or losses connected with the software.


What about Terms of Use for individual users?

A SaaS agreement and Terms of Use can perform different functions.

For example, a company may enter into the SaaS agreement and purchase 50 licences for its employees. Those individual employees are not usually parties to the commercial subscription agreement, but a provider may still need rules governing how the employees use the software.

Terms of Use can apply to each authorised user and address matters such as account security, acceptable use, prohibited activities, passwords, confidentiality, uploading content and misuse of the software. The Terms of Use are usually presented to the individual for acceptance prior to their first access of the software.

A SaaS agreement can require the customer to ensure its employees and other authorised users comply with those Terms of Use.

Getting this structure right can help protect a provider’s software, clarify customer expectations and make it easier for a provider to manage its SaaS relationships as its business grows.

If you have any questions about SaaS agreements, please do not hesitate to get in touch. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The information contained in this outline is of a general nature, should only be used as a guide and does not amount to legal advice. It should not be used or relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice or as a basis for formulating decisions. Special considerations apply to individual fact situations. Before acting, clients should consult their Parry Field Lawyer.

All registered charities must now review their governance procedures every three years[1]. We see this as important for charities to ensure their key documents are still fit for purpose.

Why this requirement has been introduced

The policy goal seems to be to help charities succeed.

Some charities are large, well-established entities with robust governance procedures and highly-experienced people governing them. There is a reasonable likelihood that they review their governance procedures routinely.

However, a large proportion of charities are small and many are governed by people with mixed governance understanding and capability. We talk to many people governing charities who have not looked at their governance documents for years and some who are operating outside of what their rules allow. This places the people governing the charity at risk of doing something that is not legally permitted. It can also lead to charities not being well run and potentially failing.

We see this new obligation as the codification of good practice. Every charity (every legal entity) should regularly pause and reflect on how they operate. It will be time well invested.

What are ‘governance procedures’?

What does the term ‘governance procedures’ mean? The Charities Act does not provide any firm answers, but we suggest governance procedures include, but are not limited to:

  • Key documents
    • The key governing document – a charitable trust deed for charitable trusts, a constitution/rules for charitable incorporated societies, or the constitution for charitable companies.
    • Secondary documents supporting the rules, such as bylaws, regulations, charters or policies.
  • Important practices
    • How the charity deals with conflicts of interest.
    • How does the charity deal with disputes and complaints.
    • How the charity recruits and onboards new trustees or officers.
    • The effectiveness of meetings and relationships.
    • Financial practices.

How to satisfy the legal requirements

Below is a simple approach which can be tailored to your charity and circumstances. We suggest you focus on what you feel needs most work, most urgently. You do not have to do all of this at once and that is not the intention. You have a three-year window so we suggest scheduling the reviews across your calendar of meetings.

The checklist below may help.

Step 1 – Look at your rules

When were your rules drafted or last updated?
Do you follow the rules? If not, why not? Do the rules need to be updated to reflect how you operate in practice?
Do the rules reflect recent legal changes such as the Charities Amendment Act 2023, the Trusts Act 2019 and the Incorporated Societies Act 2022? Remember, the legislation will usually trump the rules, so being aware of the legal changes is important for keeping those in governance safe.
Do you understand what every part of your rules mean? Ask for legal advice if something in the rules is unclear – you need to know what you are required to do and why.
Document your review briefly, setting out what you considered and what action you propose to take.

 

Step 2 – Update your rules (if NECESSARY)

Consider updating your rules if they do not reflect current practice and/or do not take account of recent law updates.
You may need legal advice to do this properly. Don’t forget to update Companies Office and Charities Services.
Document that you have amended your rules or why you haven’t if they are fit for purpose.

 

Step 3 – Review your supporting documents

Read over the documents. Do they correspond with your rules? Do they make sense? Is anything out of date?
If you don’t have a Board Charter, consider creating one. These make it easier to onboard new governors and make it clear how relationships are to work. There are excellent templates available free online that you can tailor to your circumstances.
If you do not have a Health and Safety Policy or a Privacy Policy, we recommend having these drafted to ensure you and any employees, contractors and volunteers understand their legal obligations.
If your charity involves vulnerable people and/or children, we also urge you to have a Child Protection / Vulnerable Persons Policy and Police Vetting Policy.
If you amend existing policies or draft new ones, ensure that these are well-communicated to all relevant people.

 

Step 4 – Review your practices

Does the charity have robust processes in place to manage conflicts of interest? If not, we recommend creating and following a policy and introducing an Interests Register.
How do you induct new trustees/officers onto the Board? What documents do you provide to support their understanding of what’s involved and key decisions from the past? A Board Induction Pack is ideal.
Do you review your meetings? This can help put a focus on constructive relationships and efficiency.
Are your financial processes robust? Are you confident that all payments are made according to your delegations? Is more than one trustee/officer required to approve payments?
Do your contractors and employees have proper contracts in place? Is there are clear understanding of who owns intellectual property?
Once you have considered the above, identify what could use some improvement and get to work. Then document what you reviewed, and what action you took as a result of the review.

 

Our key takeaways

Charities that invest in reviewing their governance practices will benefit by ensuring documents and practices are up-to-date, helping to keep people and the charity safe and effective.

Avoid a last minute scramble by scheduling the process throughout the three-year timeframe.

We would be pleased to assist if you would like some support when reviewing your documents.

More information

We help charities to thrive. That’s why we provide a wide range of free resources to support them. Visit our Charities Information Hub for advice and guides.

We welcome questions too and offer free, no obligation 20 minute conversations – just get in touch.

 

[1] This is a new requirement set out in section 42G of the Charities Act 2005.


Please note that this article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us by completing the enquiry form or call us on 03 348 8480.

A recent Gisborne case involving the clean-up of forestry slash and debris is a reminder that a company structure will not always shield directors from personal liability.

Three forestry directors lost their High Court appeal and will personally be liable for the costs of cleaning up woody debris and sediment left behind from their operations.

The judge said the directors had responsibility for ensuring the company complied with its resource consents and that “there is nothing especially unreasonable about imposing personal liability on them”.

The case comes at a time when environmental considerations are becoming increasingly relevant to board decision-making. Section 131(5) of the Companies Act 1993 confirms that directors may consider environmental and social factors when determining what they believe to be in the best interests of the company.

The role of an executive director

Executive directors are particularly exposed when environmental compliance issues arise because they are the bridge between the board of directors and the company’s daily operations. They have more information and influence over the company and have fewer excuses if they contribute to a breach of duty or ignore any warning signs.

Where an executive director knows about any environmental breach, they should ensure the issue is raised, independently checked, recorded and remedied. Failure to acknowledge or remedy such a breach may lead to them being personally liable, as seen in the forestry case.

Increased risk of liability from climate change

Climate change is a growing issue and we see that in severe weather events and the damage they cause. These events increase the risk associated with environmental compliance, as extreme conditions such as intense rainfall, flooding and erosion can severely disrupt operations and damage the surrounding environment. Companies that operate in those areas can in turn be impacted.

Failing to adequately prepare for these risks can result in massive clean-up liabilities and increased personal exposure for directors if they fail to remedy any damage to the environment.

In the forestry case, the judge said, “whether the directors were paid minimally or handsomely, they had a responsibility to ensure that the company complied with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The consequences of their failure to do so in this case are the resulting enforcement orders against them”.

When it comes to future liability, this will likely turn on foreseeability. The concept of foreseeability does not mean directors must prevent every loss or personally manage every risk. However, it does mean they need to ensure there are reasonable and appropriate systems in place to identify risk, monitor compliance, respond to warning signs and document decision-making.

Practical considerations from this case

Boards should consider whether they have:

  • Clear reporting on environmental and consent compliance
  • Regular updates on high-risk sites and operations
  • Independent advice where risks are significant
  • Systems that are actually followed
  • Detailed plans for extreme weather events
  • Clear records of board discussion and decisions

A culture where environmental risks are important and addressed early.

While forestry slash and directors’ duties might be a surprising mix, the recent case does show that directors can be judged on how they responded to these situations.

Authored by Steven Moe MInstD, Partner, Parry Field Lawyers; and Matthew Al-Sammak, Law Clerk, Parry Field Lawyers

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Originally published by the Institute of Directors. Republished with permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute of Directors.

International Tax Legislation

Under FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), adopted by New Zealand in 2014, the United States aims to detect and prevent tax evasion by US citizens and tax residents on their worldwide income from financial assets owned by an offshore entity, which they control e.g. a family trust or company settled/incorporated in New Zealand.

Additionally, from 1 July 2017, New Zealand endorsed the OECD’s standard Automatic Exchange of Financial Information in Tax matters (AEOI), which incorporates the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), a global version of FATCA. New Zealand is one of many OECD nations to have signed a multi-lateral agreement to combat offshore tax evasion on a global scale. All citizens of these countries are subject to the same level of tax scrutiny in New Zealand and the other participating countries, as are Americans under FATCA.

All entities (family trusts, companies and partnerships, but not individuals) have to comply with this legislation. All professionals, such as lawyers, accountants, investment fund managers/advisors etc need to advise their “entity” clients of their obligations under this complex and far-reaching legislation.

Is your trust/company/partnership (“entity”) a Financial Institution under FATCA or CRS?

It is important to know whether or not your entity (trust, company, partnership) is either a Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) under FATCA or a Financial Institution (FI) under CRS, both or neither. If your entity is a FFI then it needs to register on the United States Internal Revenue Services (IRS) site. If your entity is a FI under CRS then your entity will have to disclose to IRD in New Zealand all financial information and personal details for those trustees and beneficiaries who are residing overseas in one of the other participating jurisdictions combating offshore tax evasion.

We are in the process of corresponding with all of our trust clients and providing them with a form to assist the trustees decide whether or not their trust has to register on the US site and ultimately, report to our IRD under CRS. If you are a trust client of ours, and you have not yet received this form, please contact us.

Can this legislation be ignored?

Unfortunately, registration on the IRS site under FATCA is compulsory, even if your trust is not “controlled” by any US tax resident or citizen, provided that:

(a) It has some financial assets (shares, bonds, term deposits) managed by an investment advisor/fund manager; OR an FFI, such as one of our corporate trustees is one of the trustees of your trust; AND

(b) More than 50% of the trust’s gross income for the preceding calendar year comes from financial assets (excluding rental from property).

Unfortunately, (b) above will be satisfied even if the only income producing asset of the trust is a bank account which earns minimal interest. However, if the trust or other entity earns the majority of its income from residential rentals, it will not satisfy (b) above.
Once registered, no further personal information disclosure is needed, if there is no such “control” by a US tax resident or citizen. By contrast, registration on the IRD site under CRS is required only if your entity is “controlled” by anyone who resides overseas (but not the US).

What if my entity is not a FFI or FI?

If your entity is neither a FFI or FI then it will, by default, be a NFFE (Not a Foreign Financial Entity) or a NFE (Not a Financial Entity). As such, your entity will not have registration requirements, however it may have reporting obligations to other FFI’s/FI’s such as a bank with which your entity has funds or an investment advisor with whom your entity has a share portfolio. Such institutions will send to their customers/clients Self-Certification Forms, similar to those we are sending to our trust clients. If the completion of these forms conclude that your entity is a passive NFFE/NFE then it must, on request, disclose details of US and other overseas controlling persons to the entity’s bank or investment advisor which then report to IRD. If however, less than 50% of your entity’s gross income for the preceding calendar year is from passive income (including rental from property) then it will be deemed an active NFFE and will have no reporting obligations, even if it is “controlled” by a US or other overseas resident person.

These are complex matters, but compliance is mandatory with not unsubstantial fines able to be imposed on those who breach their obligations under this legislation.

Should you have any queries regarding these matters and how they may affect your trust, company or partnership, then please consult with us because to ignore this legislation is not an option.

 

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 us.

Properties sold by way of mortgagee sale often sell for less than similar properties on the open market. This can make a mortgagee sale attractive to purchasers, particularly those looking for a “bargain” or investment opportunity.

However, mortgagee sales also come with additional risks for purchasers. This article outlines some of the key issues and risks to be aware of, so you can make a more informed decision before buying by way of a mortgagee sale.

What is a mortgagee sale?

A mortgagee sale happens when a property owner defaults on their loan repayments and the lender, called the mortgagee, exercises their right to sell the property pursuant to the terms of the mortgage security registered against the property. The mortgagee does this to recover the money owed to them under the loan agreement secured by the mortgage.

Why are mortgagee sales often cheaper?

Properties that are sold through a mortgagee sale often sell for less than market value due to the fact that the mortgagee is focused on selling the property promptly. The mortgagee is required to obtain the best price reasonably available at the time of sale but is not driven to obtain the absolute best price possible in the same way a regular property owner might be. This means the property may not be repaired, cleaned, staged, or marketed in the same way as a standard sale. The mortgagee is also unlikely to wait for the “perfect” time to sell.

What are the risks of buying through a mortgagee sale?

There are several important risks to understand and consider before buying a property by way of a mortgagee sale:

1. The property is usually sold in its existing state

Mortgagee sale properties are commonly sold in their current condition. This may mean the property is damaged, or services do not work and there is usually no requirement for any repairs to be completed prior to settlement. Essentially, what you see is what you get.

2. The sale agreement will likely favour the lender

The mortgagee’s lawyer will usually prepare the sale agreement in the mortgagee’s favour. This usually includes refusing to provide the standard promises (or warranties) the seller of a property would normally provide a purchaser. For example, the mortgagee will likely not promise that any renovations done to the property have had the required consents or council sign offs, nor promise that the owner has not received notices or claims from third parties about the property.

3. You may receive very little information

The mortgagee may provide little or no information about the property due to the fact that they simply do not have such information. This could include key documents or reports such as a LIM report, building report, EQC information, or other usual due diligence material commonly provided by a seller to a buyer.

4. The property may not be vacant on settlement

It is usual for a seller to promise to provide “vacant possession” on settlement. However, in a mortgagee sale, this promise is usually not provided which can lead to increased costs and stress to a purchaser on settlement, especially if there are items or tenants that remain in the property and refuse to leave.

5. The property may be damaged before settlement

Even if, on settlement, vacant possession is provided, the mortgagee will likely not promise that the property will be left in a good condition. Junk may not be removed and the disgruntled previous owner may have damaged the property. The property is usually at the purchaser’s risk from the time the agreement goes unconditional so, ideally you would obtain insurance from that point, noting this may be difficult to obtain. This is different from the usual position which is that you obtain insurance from the date of settlement.

6. Access may be limited

The mortgagee may not be able or willing to give you access to the property, especially if the owner or tenants are still living there. This may prevent you from determining the condition of the property and arranging and completing due diligence (for example, a building inspection or valuation).

How can you mitigate the risks?

While the risks cannot always be removed, there are steps you can take to reduce them.

1. Speak to an experienced property lawyer early

Get legal advice as soon as possible. A property lawyer can review the agreement, explain the risks, and help you understand what protections, if any, may be available. This can help you decide whether you still want to proceed. Be prepared that their fee will likely be higher than a standard purchase due to the additional risk and work involved.

2. Investigate the property as carefully as possible

You should obtain and review whatever information is available about the property and its services. You should also be prepared for the possibility that you may not be able to obtain the usual information, such as a building report or full access to inspect the property. You will need to decide whether this is a “deal breaker” for you.

3. Check with your lender before committing

Make sure your lender is still willing to lend, despite the limited information and additional risks posed by purchasing at mortgagee sale.

4. Arrange insurance as early as possible

Subject to the terms of the agreement, you will likely need to insure the property from the date the agreement becomes unconditional. If the property is sold by auction, this will usually be from the auction date. Be aware that insurance may be difficult to obtain from this point as you are asking an insurer to insure a property that you do not yet own and there are uncertainties about occupation, access, or damage. If insurance is not forthcoming until settlement but the risk of the property sits with you prior to that, there are obvious financial implications for destructive events including but not limited to earthquakes or fires.

Mortgagee sales can offer genuine opportunities, especially for experienced buyers or investors who may be more comfortable taking on risk. However, any discount in the purchase price usually reflects the added risk. Buying a property through a mortgagee sale requires careful investigation, realistic expectations, and good legal advice before you commit.

 

Our experienced Property team are able to answer any questions that you have and can assist you through the process of buying property. Contact us today for more information.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The information contained in this outline is of a general nature, should only be used as a guide and does not amount to legal advice. It should not be used or relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice or as a basis for formulating decisions. Special considerations apply to individual fact situations. Before acting, clients should consult their Parry Field Lawyer.

In recent years, we have seen an increasing number of enquiries from Japanese companies regarding expansion into New Zealand (NZ). While overseas expansion was previously more common among large corporations, enquiries are now increasingly coming from owner-operated businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and start-ups.

There are various ways Japanese companies enter the NZ market. Some establish a small local subsidiary as an overseas base for their Japanese parent company and begin by dispatching one representative from Japan to conduct market research and business development activities. Others acquire existing local businesses, such as restaurants or retail stores, and leave day-to-day operations to local staff.

This article outlines some of the key practical considerations Japanese companies commonly face when expanding into NZ, particularly in relation to company establishment, business acquisitions and Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A), and visa options.

Methods of Entering the New Zealand Market

There are several ways Japanese companies can establish a presence in NZ. Broadly speaking, however, they generally fall into two categories: establishing a new company, or acquiring an existing NZ business.

In the case of a new establishment, a company is incorporated in NZ and used as the base for business operations. Alternatively, an existing NZ business may be acquired, allowing the purchaser to take over an already operating business.

Which option is more suitable depends on various factors, including the industry, budget, speed of market entry, and visa strategy.

Difference Between a Subsidiary and a Branch

When establishing a presence in NZ, one of the first considerations is whether to establish a local subsidiary or operate through a branch.

A subsidiary involves incorporating a separate legal entity in NZ. In most cases, this takes the form of a limited liability company. The NZ subsidiary is treated as a separate legal entity from the Japanese parent company.

This is the most common structure used in NZ, and in practice it is often easier for local subsidiaries to open bank accounts and enter into agreements with local counterparties. A subsidiary structure may also be more suitable where the company intends to hire local staff or expand its business operations in NZ over time.

By contrast, a branch operates as an extension of the Japanese parent company. Rather than establishing a separate NZ company, the Japanese company registers itself in NZ as an “Overseas Company”.

A branch structure can be advantageous where the Japanese head office wishes to maintain closer control over operations. However, contractual and legal liabilities may extend directly to the Japanese parent company. In addition, some banks and counterparties may prefer dealing with a locally incorporated NZ entity, rather than a branch.

Ultimately, the decision between a subsidiary and a branch is not simply a legal or corporate structuring issue. It is often closely connected to the Japanese parent company’s tax, accounting, and broader group strategy. In practice, these matters are commonly considered together with Japanese tax advisers and NZ accountants.

Company Incorporation Process

In NZ, companies are incorporated online through the New Zealand Companies Office website.

The process begins with selecting and reserving a company name after confirming that no similar name already exists. Formal incorporation documents are then lodged, including information relating to the company’s directors and shareholders.

One important point is the director residency requirement. An NZ company must have at least one director who either resides in NZ, or resides in Australia and is also a director of an Australian company.

There is no minimum capital requirement in NZ. A company may also be incorporated without adopting its own constitution, in which case the default rules under the Companies Act 1993 will apply. If multiple shareholders are to be involved, such as in a joint venture with a local company, a shareholder agreement may become important.

Compared with Japan, the incorporation process itself is relatively straightforward. However, due to strengthened AML (anti-money laundering) requirements in recent years, opening a bank account can sometimes take considerable time. In particular, directors are often required to attend the local bank in person as part of the verification process.

It is also necessary to obtain an IRD number (tax number) after incorporation. In addition, NZ has a 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST), and GST registration is generally required where annual turnover is expected to exceed NZD 60,000.

For more on Company Basics in NZ, read our guide here.

Business Acquisition as an Alternative

When people think about entering the NZ market, they often imagine establishing a new company from scratch. In practice, however, acquiring an existing business is also very common.

This is particularly the case for restaurants, cafés, retail stores, cleaning businesses, and other service-based businesses.

An important distinction in NZ is that “buying a business” is not necessarily the same as “buying a company”.

In NZ, a structure commonly referred to as a “Business Purchase” is frequently used. Under this structure, the purchaser acquires business assets such as plant and equipment, stock, customers, goodwill, and operating assets, rather than purchasing the company itself.

One advantage of this structure is that it may reduce the risk of inheriting the seller company’s historical liabilities or tax issues. However, certain agreements — such as key operating contracts, leases and franchise agreements — may still require supplier, customer, landlord or franchisor consent before they can be transferred to the purchaser.

M&A (Share Purchase)

By contrast, in a Share Purchase transaction, the purchaser acquires the shares in the company itself.

One benefit of this structure is that contractual relationships, customer arrangements, and employment relationships can often continue with minimal disruption. Share Purchases are commonly used where the target business operates multiple sites or has a more complex business structure.

However, because the purchaser acquires the company itself, there is also a risk of inheriting historical tax liabilities, employment issues, off-balance-sheet liabilities, and litigation risks.

For this reason, due diligence (DD) is extremely important in Share Purchase transactions. In addition, where there are multiple shareholders involved, a new constitution and Shareholders’ Agreement for the existing company may also become important.

One important distinction between a Business Purchase and a Share Purchase is the structure through which the NZ operations will be carried on. In a Business Purchase transaction, the purchaser will generally need to establish either a subsidiary or a branch through which the business assets are acquired and operated. By contrast, in a Share Purchase transaction, the acquired company itself may continue operating as the purchaser’s NZ subsidiary, meaning that it may not be necessary to establish a separate NZ entity.

In practice, smaller transactions often proceed as Business Purchases, whereas larger or more complex transactions are more likely to proceed as Share Purchases.

NZ Expansion and Visa Considerations

When entering the NZ market, companies must consider not only how the business will operate, but also who will be sent to NZ.

One visa category commonly used during the initial stages of expansion is the Specific Purpose Work Visa (SPWV).

The SPWV is used where a person comes to NZ for a specific purpose or event. It is commonly used for expatriate or representative-style arrangements, including market research, establishment of local subsidiaries or branches, and project management activities.

On the other hand, once the business becomes more established and the company wishes to continuously employ overseas personnel, the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) framework may become relevant.

Under the AEWV system, the NZ employer must first obtain Accredited Employer status from Immigration New Zealand and satisfy various requirements, including appropriate employment agreements and market-rate remuneration. In particular, where companies intend to recruit migrant workers, including Japanese nationals holding temporary visas, the AEWV is often the primary visa pathway used in practice.

Conclusion

Expanding into NZ is no longer limited to large corporations. In recent years, we have increasingly seen smaller businesses and owner-operated companies exploring opportunities in the NZ market.

At the same time, company establishment, business acquisitions, M&A, visas, tax, property and employment law issues are all closely interconnected. The way these matters are structured at the beginning can significantly affect the success and efficiency of future operations.

For Japanese companies in particular, there are often additional considerations arising from the relationship with the Japanese parent company and the use of expatriate staff. For this reason, it is generally advisable to seek NZ professional advice at an early stage of the process.

 

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. You should seek independent advice from a qualified New Zealand lawyer before making any investment or immigration decisions.

Please feel free to contact us by email immigration@parryfield.com or by phone 03 348 8480.

 

May 2026

近年、日本企業からニュージーランド進出に関するご相談が増えています。以前は大企業による進出が中心でしたが、最近ではオーナー企業や中小企業、スタートアップなどからの問い合わせも多くなっています。

進出方法として、日本本社の海外拠点として小規模な現地法人を立ち上げて、日本から代表者1名を派遣し市場調査や営業活動から始めるケースや、現地の飲食店や小売事業を買収し現地スタッフに運営を任せるケースなどもみられます。

本記事では、日本企業がNZへ進出する際によく検討される「会社設立」「ビジネス購入・M&A」「ビザ」について、実務上のポイントを交えながら解説します。

ニュージーランド進出の方法

日本企業がNZへ進出する方法はいくつかありますが、実務上は大きく分けて、「新たに会社を設立する方法」と、「既存のNZビジネスを取得する方法」に分かれます。

新規設立の場合は、NZ国内に新たな会社を作り、そこを拠点として営業活動を行います。一方で、既存のビジネスを購入する場合には、すでに運営されている店舗や事業を引き継ぐ形になります。どちらが適しているかは、業種や予算、進出スピード、ビザ戦略などによって大きく異なります。

現地法人と支店の違い

NZへ新規進出する場合、まず検討されるのが「現地法人(Subsidiary)」にするか、「支店(Branch)」にするかという点です。

現地法人の場合、NZに独立した法人を設立します。一般的には “Limited Liability Company” という形態が利用され、日本法人とは別の法人として扱われます。NZ国内では最も一般的な形態であり、銀行口座開設や取引先との契約においても比較的スムーズに進むことが多い印象があります。また、将来的に現地スタッフを雇用したり、事業を拡大したりすることを考えると、現地法人の方が運営しやすいケースも多く見られます。

一方で、支店は日本法人の延長としてNZで活動する形になります。NZ法人を別途設立するわけではなく、日本法人が “Overseas Company” としてNZ国内で登録されます。支店形態は、日本本社主導で管理しやすいというメリットがありますが、契約上や法的責任の面では、日本本社側に影響が及ぶ可能性があります。また、銀行や取引先によっては、支店より現地法人を好むケースもあります。

現地法人と支店のどちらが適切かは、単純な会社設立の問題ではなく、日本本社側の税務・会計・グループ戦略とも密接に関係します。実際には、日本側税理士やNZ会計士を含めて検討されるケースが一般的です。

会社設立の流れ

NZで会社を設立する場合、NZ会社登記局(New Zealand Companies Office)のウェブサイトからオンラインにて申請します。

最初に会社名を決めることになりますが、すでに類似した名称の会社がないかどうかを確認し、社名を予約するための申請を行います。その後、正式な会社設立の手続きを行い、取締役(Director)や株主(Shareholder)などの情報を登録します。なお、ここで重要なのがDirectorの居住要件です。NZ会社では、少なくとも1名のDirectorがNZに居住しているか、またはオーストラリアに居住し、かつオーストラリア会社のDirectorである必要があります。

最低資本金についての制限はありません。定款がなくても設立できますが、定款がない場合は、会社法のデフォルトルールに従うことになります。また、現地企業とのジョイントベンチャー(Joint Venture)を行う場合など、株主が複数いるケースでは、株主間契約(Shareholder Agreement)が重要になることもあります。

日本と比較すると設立手続自体は比較的シンプルですが、近年はAML(マネーロンダリング対策)の強化により、銀行口座開設など時間を要することがあり、特に銀行口座開設時には、Director本人が現地銀行へ直接出向くよう求められるケースも多くみられます。

また、会社設立時には税金番号(IRD Number)の取得も行う必要があります。なお、NZではGST(消費税)が15%あり、年間でNZD 60,000以上の売上が見込まれる場合にはGST登録も併せて必要になります。

ビジネス購入という選択肢

NZ進出というと、「会社を作って一から始める」というイメージを持たれる方も多いのですが、実際には既存ビジネスを購入するケースが多く見られます。特に飲食店、カフェ、小売、清掃業などでは、すでに営業中のビジネス権を買収する形が一般的です。ここで重要なのは、「ビジネスを買う」ことと、「会社を買う」ことは必ずしも同じではないという点です。

NZでは、Business Purchaseと呼ばれる形態がよく利用されます。これは、店舗設備や在庫、顧客、営業権などの「事業資産」を取得するものであり、会社そのものを取得するわけではありません。

そのため、売主会社の過去の債務や税務問題などを引き継ぐリスクをある程度限定できるというメリットがあります。一方で、既存のリース契約、フランチャイズ契約や重要な取引契約などについては、別途、大家(Landlord)、フランチャイズオーナー(Franchisor)、取引先から承諾や契約引継ぎが必要になる場合があります。

M&A(Share Purchase)

これに対し、M&A、特にShare Purchaseでは、会社の株式そのものを取得します。この場合、契約関係や顧客、雇用関係などを比較的スムーズに引き継げるというメリットがあります。複数店舗を持つ事業などでは、Share Purchaseが選択されることが多いようです。

ただし、会社そのものを取得する以上、過去の税務問題や労務問題、簿外債務、過去事案の訴訟リスクなども含めて承継してしまう可能性があります。そのため、Share PurchaseではDue Diligence(DD)が非常に重要になります。また、株主が複数いる場合は、株主間契約(Shareholder Agreement)の作成が重要になるケースもあります。

Business PurchaseとShare Purchaseの大きな違いの一つとして、NZ事業をどのような形で保有・運営するかという点があります。Business Purchaseの場合、通常は買主側でNZ法人や支店を設立した上で、その法人を通じて事業資産を取得・運営することになります。一方で、Share Purchaseの場合は、買収対象会社そのものをNZ拠点として利用し、そのまま事業を継続することが可能です。

実務上、日本企業がNZ進出する際には、比較的小規模な案件ではBusiness Purchase、大規模または複雑な案件ではShare Purchaseが利用される傾向があります。

NZ進出とビザ

NZ進出では、「どのような形で事業を始めるか」と同時に、「誰をNZへ派遣するか」も重要なテーマになります。

進出初期によく利用されるのが、Specific Purpose Work Visa(SPWV)です。SPWVは、特定の目的のためにNZで活動する場合に利用されるビザであり、いわゆる駐在員用のビザでもあり、市場調査、現地法人立ち上げ、支店設立、プロジェクト管理などで幅広く利用されています。「まだ本格的な営業は始まっていないが、まず代表者を送りたい」というケースでは、SPWVが検討されます。従業員数が少ない日本企業であっても、事業計画や資金状況、進出の合理性などによっては取得可能性があります。

一方で、事業が本格化し、海外からの人材を継続的に雇用する段階になると、AEWV(Accredited Employer Work Visa)が利用されます。AEWVでは、NZ側雇用主がニュージーランド移民局から認証雇用主(Accredited Employer)としての認可を取得した上で、適切な雇用契約や市場賃金などの条件を満たす必要があります。特に、一時ビザを保有する日本人を含む移民人材の採用を進める場合には、AEWVが中心となるケースが多くみられます。

まとめ

NZ進出は、必ずしも大企業だけのものではありません。近年では、中小企業やオーナー企業による小規模進出も増えています。

もっとも、会社設立、ビジネス購入、M&A、ビザ、税務、雇用法などは相互に関係しており、進出初期の設計によって、その後の運営が大きく変わることもあります。

特に日本企業の場合、日本本社との関係や駐在員派遣など、日本特有の事情も絡むため、早い段階でNZ側の専門家へ相談しながら進めることが重要といえるでしょう。

 

本記事は一般的な情報提供のみを目的としており、法的助言を構成するものではありません。個別の事情によって適用関係は異なるため、ご判断を行う前に、必ずニュージーランドの有資格弁護士へご相談ください。

ご相談は、shimpeisato@parryfield.com / https://www.parryfield.com/home/contact/  03 348 8480 にお問い合わせください。

 

2026年5月時点

Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 prohibits a person from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct (or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive). However, there is often confusion around what misleading and deceptive conduct actually means. In this article we break this down and explain clearly why understanding this matters.

What is misleading or deceptive conduct?

There is no legal definition in a statute approved by Parliament of what is “misleading or deceptive”. However, it involves conduct, representations, or silence that may mislead or deceive a reasonable person in the claimant’s situation. Importantly, no intention to mislead or deceive is required to meet the standard.

You can be held liable for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct where it occurs in trade or employment and affects consumers, businesses, or other parties who may rely on the information.

Some examples of misleading or deceptive conduct

It is probably most helpful to provide some examples of what this conduct involves. Misleading or deceptive conduct has been found to apply in a wide range of circumstances including sales promotions, hidden costs, comparative advertising and pricing, and sponsorship. Some common examples include:

  • Misrepresentation: for example, if a sale was advertised with a price drop from $200 to $150, but the normal price was already $150. In other words, the consumer thinks one thing (such as that it is a good price) when the reality is different.
  • Misleading packaging: this may also be deemed misleading or deceptive conduct. For example, if packaging states a bottle contains 500mL when it only contains 400mL.
  • Silence: even silence may be deemed misleading or deceptive conduct. For example, if you offer to sell someone your cafe for a price which appears reasonable based on the turnover. However, you fail to mention the number of customers has been high over the last three months while a neighbouring cafe has been closed and that things may change, or there has been a sporting event which lifted figures from what they normally would be. The turnover figure is misleading as it was not an accurate representation of the cafe’s income.

How is conduct assessed?

The approach taken by courts will help to decide whether actions amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. They will consider whether a reasonable person with the characteristics of the claimant would reasonably have been mislead. In practice, this means that conduct directed at an experienced businessperson may be less likely to be regarded as capable of misleading or deceiving such a person, compared to similar conduct directed towards a consumer.

Importantly, it is not necessary to establish that the conduct actually mislead or deceived a person, only that it had the potential to do so.

Considering your organisation’s conduct

The case law surrounding misleading and deceptive conduct can be complex and difficult to understand. Therefore, as a starting point you can think about:

  • Whether the conduct is true, as even partly incorrect information could be misleading.
  • Who is relying on the conduct? Would the average consumer be confused or get the wrong impression?
  • Could exaggerated or attention-grabbing conduct be regarded as factual?
  • Have all people you included as sponsoring, endorsing, or being associated with the conduct approved?
  • Can any statement about future obligations be made with certainty?
  • Is there any “fine print” that may make the overall impression of the conduct misleading?

This article only aims to summarise misleading or deceptive conduct, but it applies in wide range of circumstances. Therefore, if you are advertising to consumers, consider speaking with us so that we can provided tailored advice.

Independence on a charity board is essential for building trust and promoting transparency. It supports good decision-making by providing objective oversight and managing potential conflicts of interest, giving stakeholders confidence that the charity’s choices are genuinely in its best interests. A common question is: how many independent board members are needed when a company becomes a charity?

There is no universal rule, but becoming a charity represents a significant shift in mindset. In a private company, a small group of people may hold multiple roles such as, directors, shareholders, and employees, without much public scrutiny. Once an entity registers as a charity, the organisation exists to advance charitable purposes for the public benefit and ideally continues beyond the founders’ involvement. Registration brings benefits such as tax concessions and credibility, but it also entails greater accountability, transparency, and public scrutiny.

Risks of a Non-Independent Board

If the same individuals act as directors, shareholders, and employees, conflicts of interest can arise, particularly regarding remuneration, contracts, or other benefits. For example, it is inappropriate for people to decide their own salaries or employment terms. Any remuneration should be set at market rate, and those receiving it should not participate in the decision-making process.

Managing Conflicts of Interest

Charities Services’ guidance explains that conflicts of interest can be actual, potential, or perceived, and may be financial or non-financial. While conflicts are common in charities, poor management can lead to disputes, bad decisions, or reputational damage.

To manage conflicts effectively, a charity should:

  • Maintain a clear conflict of interest policy and an interests register
  • Ensure conflicts are declared at the start of meetings
  • Exclude conflicted individuals from discussions or decisions
  • Record how conflicts are handled in the minutes
  • Report significant conflicted transactions as related party transactions in the financial statements

Practical Guidance on Board Composition

For a company converting to a charity, it is generally expected that around half the board be truly independent. This ensures that conflicted individuals can step aside from decisions affecting their own pay or position while leaving enough independent members to make valid decisions.

Our experienced team help many charities with their governance. If you would like to talk through your situation, feel free to reach out.

The Government has announced that they will be reforming the Holidays Act 2003 (“Holidays Act”). The Holidays Act can be difficult to navigate and has long since caused issues in calculating leave entitlements and payments. The Employment Leave Bill (“Bill”) aims to consolidate and simplify leave entitlements and payments, enhancing certainty and clarity for employers and employees alike.

Key Proposed Changes

While the new Bill outlines a range of new changes (an overview of all the changes can be found at the MBIE website), the below are a few of the significant ones proposed;

Annual Leave

  • Annual Leave will accrue continuously in hours from day one, rather than the current entitlement of four weeks’ annual holidays after 12 months’ continuous employment. Leave will also be taken in hours and employees will be able to use their leave hours to take any part of a day off work.

Sick Leave

  • Under the Bill, Sick Leave will also begin to accrue from day one of employment, meaning that employees will earn sick leave in direct proportion to their contracted hours. Therefore, not all employees will receive the same amount of sick leave anymore.

Casual Employees and Additional Hours of Work

  • For hours worked by casual employees, and hours worked for other employees over and above contracted hours (except where those hours are compensated by salary), there will be a 12.5% leave compensation payment in lieu of annual and sick leave accrual.

Payment of Leave

  • The way leave is paid will also change. The same hourly leave pay rate will be used for all types of leave. It will be based on employee’s base wage for the day of leave. Fixed allowances will also continue to be paid in full during leave.

Public Holidays

  • Public holiday entitlements will be based on a new clearer test for determining whether an employee would have otherwise worked on the day.

Now is a great time to review your employment agreements – it is critical that employers are aware of what their current agreements provide, particularly where those do not reflect the above, and that employers get advice early.

Further, while employers will have 24 months from enactment to get their systems, contracts, and payroll practices in order before the new regime fully commences, it is prudent for employers to be liaising early with their payroll providers to ensure that leave entitlements, once the new framework comes into force, can be calculated and applied correctly.

Communication with staff about the changes will also be important, especially if some staff feel they are worse off under them. Again, early advice can help with this.

Please note that this article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us to discuss how we can support you.