14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

is just and equitable, to make an order that liquidations in respect <strong>of</strong> each company<br />

must proceed together as if they were one company and assets must be pooled for<br />

distribution.<br />

A contribution order is an order in which a company related to a company 125 in<br />

liquidation is required to contribute towards the settlement <strong>of</strong> claim against the latter.<br />

A pooling order, on the other hand, is a court‟s order that a liquidation <strong>of</strong> two related<br />

companies must proceed together as if they are one entity and their assets to be<br />

combined for distribution. An application for a contribution order can be made if one<br />

<strong>of</strong> the related companies is in liquidation whereas the pooling order can be granted if<br />

two or more companies are in liquidation.<br />

When a contribution order is made, the liquidated company‟s creditors will be in a<br />

better position because the contribution made by the other company which is not<br />

liquidated may increase the availability <strong>of</strong> assets for distribution, thus increasing<br />

their chances <strong>of</strong> getting their payments. However, if the contribution order might<br />

lead to the insolvency <strong>of</strong> the related company, Justice Tipping in Lewis v Poultry<br />

Processors (Holdings) Limited 126 commented in such a case, claims <strong>of</strong> bona fide<br />

unsecured creditors <strong>of</strong> the related should be satisfied first. 127<br />

125 Section 2(3) <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 defines related companies as:<br />

“ A company is related to another if:<br />

(a) <strong>The</strong> other company is its holding or subsidiary; or<br />

(b) More than half <strong>of</strong> the issued shares <strong>of</strong> the company, other than shares that carry no right to<br />

participate beyond a specified amount in distribution <strong>of</strong> either pr<strong>of</strong>its or capital, is held by the<br />

other company and companies related to that other company (whether directly or indirectly, but<br />

other than in a fiduciary capacity); or<br />

(c) More than half <strong>of</strong> the issued shares <strong>of</strong> the company, other than shares that carry no right to<br />

participate beyond a specified amount in distribution <strong>of</strong> either pr<strong>of</strong>its or capital, is held by<br />

members <strong>of</strong> the other (whether directly or indirectly, but other than in a fiduciary capacity; or<br />

(d) <strong>The</strong> business <strong>of</strong> the companies has been so carried on that the separate business <strong>of</strong> each<br />

company, or a substantial part <strong>of</strong> it, is not readily identifiable; or<br />

(e) <strong>The</strong>re is another company to which both companies are related; and „related company‟ has a<br />

corresponding meaning.”<br />

126 (1988) 4 NZCLC 64,508.<br />

127 See also Re Liardet Holdings Ltd (1993) BCR 604.<br />

99

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!