New Zealand’s Companies Act 1993 and common law impose duties and liabilities on the directors of a company.

Who is a director?

Many of the following duties are not limited to those actually on the board of directors. A director can also include “shadow directors” who instruct the directors how to act, and persons who exercise powers of the board by delegation.

Who are duties owed to?

In general, these duties are owed directly to the company, giving it (and not individual shareholders or creditors) the right to sue a director for breach of duty. However, there do exist a number of provisions by which shareholders and creditors may pursue directors – these will be examined at the end of this article.

1. Duty to Act in Good Faith and in the Best Interests of the Company (s131)

Good Faith

Good faith implies acting with a proper motive – without any malice or dishonesty. It also means avoiding acts which promote a director’s own interests at the expense of the company’s (historically termed “conflicts of interest”).

Acting in the best interests of the company

This is a subjective test – that is, directors must only act in what they perceive to be the best interests of the company – not what an “ordinary” or “reasonable” director might do. This gives directors a certain amount of discretion to use their own business judgment, without fear of every decision being open to scrutiny. Although, the Courts may find section 131 has been breached when a director does not take into account the company’s interests before acting.

Exceptions to best interests rule

If the company is a joint venture company or a wholly (i.e. 100%) owned subsidiary of a parent company, a director may act in the best interests of his or her appointing shareholder or parent company – even if this is not in the company’s best interests. This recognises that these are unique entities – whose operation depends on directors having liberty to carry out the wishes of their (often conflicting) shareholders.

Strait-jacketed?

Given the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, can directors have any interest in a transaction or use any information gained by virtue of their position? The short answer is “yes” – provided they are willing to jump through the fairly arduous hoops of disclosure imposed by the 1993 Act – these will be discussed shortly.

Our advice: Don’t get too comfortable with the notion that as long as you believe a decision is in the best interests of the company, you’ll be fine. If your decision is one which any director with any appreciation of fiduciary responsibilities would see as being inconceivable, it is likely a Court would view this as a breach of section 131 – despite its subjective appearance. There is also an independent duty on directors to exercise reasonable care and skill – read on ….

2. Duty to Exercise Powers for a Proper Purpose (s133)

At its simplest, this duty could be said to cover the situation where a director strays beyond the limitations intended for their office and acts out of an ulterior motive. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to define in advance exactly what situations fall within this definition. It may be that it is not until a Court reviews the exercise of a power that it can be determined whether or not that power was exercised for a proper purpose. Often the Courts consider whether section 131 has been breached and then rely on that rationale to determine that the director has also breached section 133. Some examples from case law include where a director has acted for personal purposes, has withdrawn funds to the company and Inland Revenue’s detriment, or has engaged in a Ponzi scheme.

Our advice: Be aware that this duty is not related to the duty to act in good faith – that is, a director could act in what he or she thought was the best interests of the company, but still be acting for an improper purpose. A clear example of this would be the directors issuing shares solely for the purpose of diluting a particular (and probably troublesome) shareholder’s shareholding. While this may be in the best interests of the company as a whole (and even applauded by the other shareholders), it will nevertheless be an improper motive for issuing shares.

3. Duty to Comply with Companies Act 1993 and Company Constitution (s134)

It is obvious that by not complying with the Act or the Company Constitution, a director would be acting outside of his or her mandate.

But wait, there’s more …

However, this duty may be more onerous than it first appears. The Act imposes numerous responsibilities on directors, of which failure to discharge may result in criminal liability (discussed later). For example, under section 87(1), a share register must be maintained by the company. Failure to do this would mean that the Act is not being complied with and, for a director, would be a breach of the section 134 duty. This breach will be actionable by the company as against the director, which means that not only does so simple an omission as failure to maintain a share register constitute a criminal offence, it exposes directors to potential civil liability for breach of section 134.

And more …?

Our advice: Make sure you are also aware of obligations under other statutes, such as the Privacy Act, Health & Safety in Employment Act and Resource Management Act… – because if you cause the company to act in contravention of any statute, this would almost certainly amount to acting for an improper purpose or not acting in the best interests of the company.

4. Reckless Trading (s135)

Don’t be so reckless …

A director must not agree to, cause or allow the business of the company to be carried on in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors. This duty is aimed at preventing conduct by the directors which could jeopardise the company’s solvency. It is not designed to curtail the directors’ ability to take risks – as long as the company is able to bear the loss from complete failure.

Objective Test

Unlike the best interests duty, the directors’ personal opinion as to the company’s ability to continue trading is irrelevant. Instead, a Court is likely to ask: “Was there something in the financial position of the company which would have alerted an ordinary prudent director to the real possibility that continuing to carry on the business of the company would cause serious loss to the creditors?”

Arise from your slumber

The situation of a director who “allows” reckless trading may include the “sleeping director” who has little or no actual knowledge of the company business, but is content to abdicate his or her responsibilities to more active members of the board. This can be especially relevant where spouses are each directors of a company, but only one works in the business.

Our advice: Make sure you have a sound knowledge of goings on no matter what your level of involvement in the company. If you miss a board meeting, make sure you find out what happened from another director – even obtain a copy of the minutes to ensure no major decision was made – which you might have “allowed” by your absence.

5. Duty in relation to Obligations (s136)

A director must not agree to the company incurring an obligation unless he or she believes on reasonable grounds when the obligation is incurred that the company will be able to perform the obligation when required to do so.

This will apply to such transactions as the company giving a guarantee.

Cramping their style?

It has been suggested that this duty will prevent directors taking commercial risks. However, as long as the directors’ decision is based on reasonable inquiries, research or information, it is less likely to be scrutinised later.

Our advice: When making a decision of this kind, the board should leave a “paper trail” – detailing not only their decision, but also their reasons. Better still, obtain professional advice. This will go toward showing that you acted on “reasonable grounds”. Also, do your homework early on – note the test is applied “at the time the obligation is incurred” – that is, when the transaction is entered into.

6. Director’s Duty of Care & Skill (s137)

The Test

Directors are required, when exercising powers or performing duties, to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonable director would exercise in the same circumstances, taking into account:

the nature of the company;
the nature of the decision;
the position of the director; and
the nature of responsibilities undertaken by him/her.

Therefore, it seems each director is judged on his or her role in each decision made. If a director is appointed to a specific task, he or she may be liable if they do not bring the required skills to that task. However, it appears that a director is not ordinarily supposed to have special skills – so there may be differing levels of skill and care expected from executive and non-executive directors (but note that any difference between these directors applies to this duty only).

Don’t go down these roads …

Examples of the Courts finding directors to have breached this duty include:

where they acted before becoming fully acquainted with the company’s affairs.
where loans were made to a company connected to a director with no possible benefit to the company.
where cheques were signed in blank and the conduct of the business left entirely to another director.
where directors unquestionably trusted (subsequently dishonest) employees with the management of the company.

A Higher Standard?

Many people believe that this duty places a greater burden and more stringent standard of care on directors than was previously the case. At the very least, it would seem that shareholders’ greater awareness of a statutory duty of care on directors will lead to higher expectations and increased vigilance of directors’ actions.

Our advice: It is vital to understand that it is no longer acceptable to sit back and let others run the show. It is clearly established that even directors who are scarcely involved in management of the company can still be held liable when financial difficulties arise. Evaluate your position as a director – are you familiar with the ins and outs of the business? Do you read (and understand) the financial accounts? Do you attend board meetings? Do you have a hand in business decision-making? If the answer to these is generally “No”, it may well be that you shouldn’t be a director at all!

7. Use of Information and Advice (s138)

Relief from Omniscience?

In today’s commercial environment, directors cannot be expected to know everything about their company, or possess all the skills necessary for business decision making (although based on the foregoing, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise!) Section 138 provides a (limited) form of relief for directors. It entitles directors, in the course of decision making, to rely upon reports, statements and financial data, as well as professional/expert advice given to them by:

an employee of the company who is believed by the director (reasonably) to be reliable and competent in the matters concerned – this could be another director.
a professional adviser/expert on matters within their competence.
another director or committee of directors regarding a specific area of designated authority.

There is a catch: In doing so, directors must act in good faith, make proper inquiry where the circumstances indicate a need for this, and have no knowledge that their reliance on the information is unreasonable.

Our advice: Again, documentation of decisions is the key – whenever you rely on someone else’s advice, record that fact. And don’t just blindly rely on others – as a director, you should be capable of reaching a reasonably informed opinion of the company’s financial capacity. If there are grounds for suspicion arising from another’s advice – act appropriately.

8. Director’s Interests (ss139-144)

Traditionally, if a director had an interest in a contract made with the company, he or she had to account to the company for any profits they might make (unless the company’s Articles or shareholders permitted otherwise). This was seen as a unduly harsh rule, and has now given way to a more permissive – but also more controlled – regime under the disclosure provisions of the Companies Act 1993.

Cards on the Table

Where a director has (or may obtain) a direct or indirect financial benefit in a transaction, he or she must disclose their interest in the transaction as soon as they become aware of it.

Disclosure is made by way of entry in the “interests register”, which must be kept by the Company. Disclosure is also required to be made to the board.

Avoidance by the Company

A transaction in which a director is interested may be avoided by the company any time within three months after the transaction is disclosed to the shareholders (whether by annual report or otherwise) – unless it is proved that the transaction is for fair value.

Our advice: Err on the side of excess when it comes to disclosure. While failure to disclose an interest in the register doesn’t affect the transaction’s validity, it could open you up to a $10,000 fine or an action from shareholders for breach of duty.

Also, disclose interests to the shareholders early – don’t leave it until the annual report – this could be months away and extend the timeframe in which the transaction can be overturned by the company.

9. Use of Company Information (s.145)

Pssst! …… (Don’t) Pass it on!

As with director’s interests, directors have traditionally been prohibited from using company property (including confidential information and trade secrets) for their own purposes. However, once again this blanket prohibition seems to have been abandoned in favour of regulating the use of information by directors.

Section 145 of the Act provides that a director who possesses confidential information must not disclose that information to any person, nor make use of it or act on it, subject to the following exceptions:

If disclosure is made solely for company purposes.
If disclosure is required by law.
If:

(a) the director has entered particulars of the disclosure in the interests register; and

(b) the board has authorised the director to make disclosure; and

If disclosure is made by a nominee director to his or her appointer, provided this is not prohibited by the Board.

What is confidential information? It could be anything, but definitely includes trade secrets, technical know-how, lists of customers, internal financial reports, feasibility studies, and specific information concerning ongoing transactions between the company and its clients.

It is important to note that the section does not directly cover the use of company information by a former director. Here, the company would probably need to rely on the common law relating to breach of confidence.

Our advice: While section 145 would seem to provide reasonable protection, if your company’s operation is such that directors are often privy to large amounts of confidential information and/or have outside interests in similar spheres, it may be prudent to have the directors sign a confidentiality/restraint of trade agreement which expressly binds them during and beyond their term of office.

10. Further Liability

While the above synopsis sets out the primary duties a director must uphold (which, in essence, place the quality and integrity of their decisions under the spotlight), liability for breach of these duties is by no means the only way a director can be called to account. What follows is a whistle-stop tour (or steeple-chase) of further provisions contained in the Companies Act 1993 which could cause a director to stumble:

A director owes duties directly to shareholders to supervise the share register, disclose interests in contracts with the company (as discussed above), and disclose any interest they have in share dealings. A breach of these duties entitles a shareholder to bring a personal action against a director (s169).
A shareholder could also bring an action to either restrain a director from acting in a manner which breaches the Act or the company constitution (s164), or to force them to act in accordance with these (s170).
Directors may be personally liable if a distribution is made to shareholders when the company is insolvent – to the extent that the distribution is not able to be recovered from the shareholders (s56).
Directors may be personally liable to liquidators or creditors for the debts of the company if they participate in the management of a company when they have been disqualified (by the Court or the Registrar) from doing so (ss384,386).
Directors may be liable to the company if they receive an unauthorised payment or have unauthorised insurance effected – to the extent they are unable to prove these are fair to the company (ss161,162).
If, on the liquidation of the company, it appears to the Court that a director has misapplied company money or property, or has been guilty of negligence, default or breach of trust, he or she may be liable to repay or restore the money or property, or contribute an amount to the assets of the company by way of compensation (s301).
Note that a creditor is entitled to apply for an order under this section and could allege breach of any duty as grounds for an order that money or property be paid directly to the creditor. If a company is in liquidation and the failure by the company to keep proper accounting records has contributed to its inability to pay its debts or impedes an orderly liquidation, a Court can order that any directors or former directors are personally responsible for all or any part of the debts of the company – unless they can show they took reasonable steps to ensure compliance (s300).
Criminal Liability: There are over 100 sections of the Act a breach of which can constitute a criminal offence. In almost all of these sections, criminal liability is imposed on the directors personally, in addition to the company (there do exist limited defences relating to reasonableness on the part of directors). Penalties can be up to $10,000 depending on the offence. Far more serious, dishonesty offences can carry up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine of $200,000 (ss373,374).
Liability in tort: A director can be liable for a tort (for example, negligence) committed primarily by the company, but through their agency – if they have assumed personal responsibility for their actions.
A directors who trades shares using inside information is liable to account to the buyer to the extent that the shares are sold for more or less than their fair value (s149).
Directors should also be aware of both the company’s and their own obligations under any other legislation – which also have the potential to fix personal liability on directors. These include, but are not limited to the Financial Reporting Act, Fair Trading Act, Health & Safety in Employment Act, Resource Management Act, Commerce Act, Privacy Act, Human Rights Act, and Building Act.

Conclusions

It will hopefully be apparent by now that the significance and potential consequences of these duties and liabilities are not to be sneezed at. Unfortunately, it seems that at present directors are either largely ignorant of these standards or do not take them sufficiently seriously. Perhaps more unfortunate is that it is usually not until a company fails that the extent of these duties becomes relevant – when a director’s decision is reviewed by the Court.

It is imperative to get things right at the time each decision is made. If you have any doubt as to the wisdom of any decision or act either of your own or your fellow directors, seek legal advice.

Because the implications of these duties are potentially severe, companies are increasingly availing themselves of the indemnity and insurance provisions of the 1993 Act as part of a risk management strategy designed to avoid personal liability on the part of directors.

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.

Under the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, everyone who provides, or offers to provide, a financial service in New Zealand or from New Zealand to other countries must register as an FSP. Importantly, before you offer your financial services you must be registered.

There is a simple straightforward application process for registration. This can be found online on the website of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Firstly, the application process depends on what kind of FSP you are. There are three different types depending on your business and the services you will provide – an individual; an entity already registered via the Companies Office; or another entity or body.

Applying as an individual:

There is basic information which you will have to include the application such as your full legal name, date of birth, residential and contact address, your business address and any trading names you use.

Applying as a business already on a Companies Office register:

You will have to provide your company or entity’s name, the Companies Office number or its New Zealand Business Number. If you do not know what this is, you can search for it via the Companies Register. Furthermore, include any trading names you use, your business and contact address and the basic details on your directors and other controlling owners and managers.

Applying as another entity or body:

The basic information you will have to provide is about your business, such as its legal and trading names, the country of origin, the business and communication address and also an email address. You will also have to provide the basic details on your directors and other controlling owners and managers.

For all applications:

Firstly, in completing this process, whatever kind of FSP you are, you will have to provide information about your business and the services it will provide. In the form you fill out online there are a list of services. You would select all the ones that you intend to provide upon registration. This is something that needs to be kept up to date as well. The services that you need to declare can be found under section 5 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008.

Secondly, every individual FSP and those people in charge will have to undergo a criminal history check.

If you are applying to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), at the same time, to be an Authorised Financial Advisor (AFA), there is additional information to prepare which can be found here.

When registering as a FSP there are transaction fees to pay:

○ Application fee, incl. GST: $345.00
○ Criminal history check fee per person, incl. GST: $13.00
○ FMA levy, incl. GST: $690.00
○ TOTAL: $1048.00

Furthermore, after you register you have to pay fees once you’ve completed your annual confirmation:

○ The Companies Office Fee, incl. GST: $75.00

Alongside this, you will pay levies to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA).

○ The amount of levies you pay depends on your class of service provider and the services you provide.
○ Levies are listed under Schedule 2 of the Financial Markets Authority (Levies) Regulations 2012.

This online process is efficient and easy and should not take up too much of your time.

If you are in start-up mode then you have plenty to think about – so when it comes to setting up your Company you may be wondering what is essential and what is not? In this article we talk about a Constitution and explain what it is and the role it can play for your Company.

To set up a Company the key things you need are a Shareholder and Director (needs to be NZ resident or a director in an Australian company). A Constitution is not legally essential in order to set up a Company but they are very common. This is because they can alter the ‘default’ position under the Companies Act. Without a Constitution the Companies Act provisions apply to your new venture. That may be fine in some simple situations where there is only one shareholder and director but in the usual scenario of multiple people involved it can pay to be specific and customise how you want the rules to apply.

It is worth remembering that because a Constitution is a public document it also allows for transparency in case someone wants to look it up on the Companies Office website (as opposed to a Shareholders’ Agreement which is a private document). More on the Shareholders’ Agreement and what that is another time.

So turning to what a Constitution would typically cover, they deal with how the Company will run in relation to matters such as:

• Setting out clearly the purpose of the Company;
• Information regarding the Shares such as how they are issued and transferred and whether there are any restrictions on selling or transferring shares;
• About distributions and when dividends will be paid and the process;
• Regarding Directors such as the number of directors, how they are appointed and how they resign or are removed;
• Meetings and what will make up quorums of the Board or Shareholder meetings; and
• What happens if the Company is wound up and ceases to trade.

While it may seem like having a Constitution is not necessary if you will be the sole Director and sole Shareholder it is important to think long term – how about in 2 years when you want to bring in an investor? It is likely that having a framework to show that covers off the key points about how the Company operates will be helpful. We would be happy to talk through some of the issues involved as we deal with start-ups most days of the week.

Recently we prepared a guide called “The Start-ups Legal Toolkit” which is a free ebook – contact us if you would like a copy. We also have resources on our “Innovate” website with templates and articles and guides there.

Contacts: Steven Moe – stevenmoe@parryfield.com and Kris Morrison – krismorrison@parryfield.com

We have all come across disclaimers of some sort. Whether a ‘use at own risk’, ‘don’t try this at home’ or ‘check with your doctor/lawyer before acting upon this information’, the concept isn’t new to us. Yet how much can we really rely on these? At what point can people disclaim their own liability, and when do they have to take responsibility for their actions and advice?

Where do you start?

A core starting point begins with section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 which disallows anyone in trade, from engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. If someone can show that they merely passed on the information, with no reason to believe that it was misleading or deceptive, then such a disclaimer may be relied upon.

What are some examples?

In the case of Goldsboro v Walker, Mr Oborn wished to buy a motel. He was initially declined but he tried again, but named his mother-in-law as the purchaser, and forged her signature. His solicitor, Mr Fleming, sent the agreement to the solicitors, but Mr Oborn never completed the purchase. In the Court of Appeal, Mr Oborn was found to be in breach of section 9 as he was not merely passing on the information, but represented that he was acting for the mother-in-law. It did not matter that he thought the assertion to be true.

What if you just “convey” information?

This is where the concept of passing over information comes into play. The case law suggests that if someone clearly communicates that the information they are giving has not been assessed by them, but is merely passed on, they can exclude their liability.

The Supreme Court in Red Eagle Corporation Ltd has emphasised that unless it is clear that the information has been passed on from another source, the conveyor takes the risk that the information will be understood to be personal knowledge. Informing the recipient gives them the opportunity to seek further advice and information.

Conveyors should be careful not to get involved in the information if they wish to keep the safety of the disclaimer. In Watson v Gilbert, despite putting a disclaimer in the financial information, the defendant was held to be more than a mere provider of information as he introduced the plaintiff to the investment programme and encouraged the investment.

What does that mean for us?

If you are receiving information that comes with a disclaimer, you will generally have to accept that they have distanced themselves from liability. It will be your responsibility to do further research. However if they haven’t clearly explained that the information they are giving to you has been sourced from elsewhere, and that they haven’t been involved with it i.e. edited/added to the words, included the words in their own pamphlets etc., then you may be able to consider it as personal knowledge. If the information turns out to be incorrect, then you may be able to make a claim against them.

It is also worth keeping in mind that there may be specific rules that apply to you based on the type of industry you are in. For example, Real Estate Agents are subject to rules around their conduct and it is difficult for them exclude those professional duties. If you are uncertain about what applies and what you can exclude by way of a disclaimer then we would be happy to discuss with you to clarify.

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

What is Copyright?

Copyright is the set of legal rights given to the creator/owner of an original work. It prevents other people from doing certain restricted acts in relation to a copyright work without the permission of the copyright owner. These restricted acts include (among others) the right to:

Copy the work;
Issue copies of the work to the public by sale or otherwise;
Perform, play or show the work in public;
Communicate the work to the public;
Adapt the work; and
Do any of the above in relation to any adaptation of the work.

There is no requirement to assert or register copyright in New Zealand. Copyright recognition in New Zealand arises automatically in various kinds of works if:

The work is original; and
The author is domiciled in New Zealand or in a prescribed foreign country or is a citizen or resident of New Zealand or of a prescribed foreign country

Who Owns Copyright?

The Crown is the first owner of any copyright in work made by a person employed or engaged by the Crown under a contract of service, a contract of apprenticeship, or a contract for services.
Subject to Crown ownership, and unless otherwise agreed, in most cases the author is the first owner of the copyright in a literary work.

However, unless otherwise agreed:

if an employee makes a literary or artistic work in the course of employment, the employer owns the copyright; and
if a person commissions and pays or agrees to pay for the taking of a photograph or the making of a computer program, painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, model, sculpture, film, or sound recording, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the commissioning person owns the copyright.

Attribution

The author of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is a copyright work has the right to be identified as the author of the work whenever the work is published or communicated to the public (section 94). The right to be identified as the author is not infringed unless the author has asserted the right be identified as author (section 96).

Use of Third Party Content

Where a third party owns copyright in content, you will not be entitled to copy or adapt that content or a substantial part of it without the permission of the copyright owner or unless the copying or adaptation can be justified under an exception.

What is a Substantial Part?

What constitutes a substantial part of a copyright work is a question of ‘fact and degree’. The quality or importance of what has been taken is much more significant than the quantity. Copying a part of a copyright work that by itself has no originality will not normally be copying a substantial part of the copyright work.
Copyright protection is not focused on originality of ideas but on originality of expression. The importance of the copied part to the original copyright work as a whole is assessed to determine whether it forms a substantial part of the original copyright work.
Originality tends to lie in the detail with which the basic idea is presented. The greater the originality, the greater the protection that copyright law will afford it.

Objective Similarity

Even if another copyright work has been copied, the copyright won’t necessarily have been infringed unless the copy is objectively similar to the original. It is possible to take underlying ideas and concepts that are expressed in a copyright work and express those ideas in a significantly different way which therefore does not infringe copyright.

There is limited clear case law, though, on what counts as objective similarity. In one case, the Judge said ‘a copy is a copy if it looks like a copy’.

Causal Connection

It is also necessary to show that the infringing work was actually copied directly or indirectly from the original copyright work.

Altered Copying

Taking the ideas expressed in a copyright work and expressing those ideas in a different words and in a different format may produce new content that is not causally connected with or objectively similar to the original work.
However, copyright will still be infringed if the altered copy has ‘incorporated a substantial part of the independent skill, labour etc. contributed by the original author in creating the copyright work’.

Fair Use Exceptions

There are a number of fair dealing and other exceptions under New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994.

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

Kris Morrison – krismorrison@parryfield.com

New Zealand has a similar takeovers regime to that in other Commonwealth jurisdictions like Australia and England. There are specific rules which govern when a takeover offer will need to be made and the process around doing so. This article sets out the key thresholds involved and points to be aware of if an acquisition in New Zealand is being considered.

Where are the rules set out?

Takeovers are governed by the Takeovers Code which became law 15 years ago. The purpose is to make sure that the acquirer of shares in a company complies with certain rules when certain thresholds are met. This means that shareholders are informed where there is a potential change of control of the company they own shares in.

Which companies do the rules apply to?

The rules only apply to certain “Code Companies” which are only New Zealand registered companies that:

have (or recently have had) listed shares that trade on the NZX; or
have 50 or more shareholders who hold voting rights as well as 50 or more share parcels.

What are the key thresholds?

The fundamental threshold is 20% because acquisitions of shares which will take a shareholding above 20% are caught by the Takeovers Code. In measuring this the percentage held by associates is also examined. Such acquisitions must be done in compliance with the rules.

A takeover offer can either be a partial or full takeover offer. Full takeover offers mean the offeror has to receive a minimum level of acceptance of the offer. So if the offeror does not reach more than 50% then the entire takeover fails.

This is in contrast to a partial takeover offer where the offeror makes an offer for only some of the shares. Whether it is successful will depend on the level that is sought – if for more than 50% then the acceptances need to be above that level. If for less than 50% then shareholders vote for or against the offer – so the offer needs to get to the percentage specified and also be approved by a majority of the shareholders. As this indicates, these rules are more complex than a full takeover.

The following are also important percentages to be aware of:

50% shareholding: As mentioned above, this is important in the context of a takeover to determine what rules apply;
5% creep: is permitted each year over a 12 month period for Shareholders who already own more than 50%; and
90% threshold: compulsory acquisition of shares is permitted above this level because they have become a dominant owner.

Conclusion

This short summary of some of the key points regarding takeovers in New Zealand is brief and the specific circumstances of any situation will need to be examined. If you have a target in mind then it would pay to discuss the context of that particular proposal with your advisers to obtain input on the best approach to adopt as one size will not fit every situation.

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