Topical issues

A Necessary Evolution: Government to Review the Companies Act 1993

This post was originally published on LinkedIn as an opinion piece by Richard Hoare.

The government is launching a review of the Companies Act 1993. While the Act has been a robust and effective framework, I agree that it is time to modernise and clarify key areas.

The Act’s Current Strengths

The Companies Act 1993 has served New Zealand businesses well for decades, proving to be both functional and resilient. It is typically held in high regard offshore also.

However, a review is welcome—provided it involves thorough consultation with practitioners and a clear focus on enhancing its strengths.

We should avoid change for change’s sake and also be careful to ensure the Act remains true to its ‘timeless’ nature by avoiding ‘political’ amendments and leaving scope for the regulation of Companies to evolve with time within a clear framework.

Key Areas for Improvement

Government has announced some high level items for review: major transactions (strange to me), identity updates for directors/shareholders, an overhaul of insolvency provisions, and ‘digitisation’.

Here are my key opportunities for improvement:

  1. Modernizing Company Law Mechanics The “mechanics” of companies law need updating. For instance, did you know that only directors in New Zealand must receive notice of a meeting? This outdated requirement needs to be scrapped. Updating how “notice” is given can streamline operations, taking cues from modern commercial contracts.
  2. Clarifying the Law Some concepts in the Act are too high-level, leading to inefficiencies. Take contracting—who needs to sign for a company, and when? Or constitutions—what can they modify in the Act? Australia’s Corporations Act provides clear guidelines here, and it’s time we follow suit. After 30 years of precedent, we can afford to make these areas more transparent.
  3. Regulating Related Party Transactions My view is that the biggest flaw of our Companies legislation lies in the minimal regulation of related party transactions and the complication of unpicking them. There should be a clear and comprehensive regime regulating the entry into, and lawful execution of, related party transactions. A failure to comply should attract clear and serious consequences for both directors and other key participants. There is an opportunity to provide directors more comfort that arm’s length dealings on commercial terms will not attract liability if they go wrong – but create more cause for caution and hesitation when dealing with related parties.

Conclusion

The Companies Act 1993 is due for a refresh, but any changes must be deliberate and informed. By addressing the areas above, we can ensure that New Zealand’s company law remains both practical and progressive in the years ahead.

Connect with Richard Hoare.

Richard Hoare

Share
Published by
Richard Hoare

Recent Posts

Sharp Tudhope Welcomes Associate Chrissy Tarrant to the Property Team

Welcome Chrissy We’re pleased to welcome Chrissy Tarrant to Sharp Tudhope’s property team as an…

19 hours ago

Changes to the Holidays Act 2003: what this means for employers and employees

Employment Leave Act NZ: Key Changes to Annual Leave, Sick Leave & Public Holidays New…

2 weeks ago

Before You Sign: Common Conditions Every Buyer Should Understand in an Agreement for Sale and Purchase

Understanding conditions in a Sale and Purchase Agreement Buying your first home is super exciting,…

4 weeks ago

Probate Threshold in New Zealand Increasing to $40,000: What You Need to Know

Probate threshold changes in New Zealand Since 2009, New Zealand has required a formal High…

2 months ago

A Legacy That Took Flight: Ray Shannon’s Butterflies and the Power of Planning Ahead

Not every client’s legacy ends up in a museum. Recently, Matthew and Samantha from the…

2 months ago

Buying property together? Understanding ownership options

Joint Tenants vs Tenants in Common So, you’ve found the dream home, or at least…

2 months ago