ENGLISH MINING COMPANIES

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 55, 7 March 1899, Page 2

ENGLISH MINING COMPANIES

POSITION OF LOCAL HOLDERS.

A rather important question was raised by Mr D. G. MacDonnell yesterday afternoon at the meeting of the Chambers of Mines. He referred to the practice of increasing the capital of mining companies in London without submitting the proposal in any way to New Zealand shareholders. He instanced a recent case in which 50,000 fresh shares were issued without local holders of shares being consulted. Mr MacDonnell said this was a matter of great importance to local shareholders, and he thought the Chamber should take it into consideration with a view to getting an alteration made in the Act whereby the interest of local shareholders would be protected. The case he referred to was only one of many. In another case a company went into liquidation, re-formed, and made a call before local shareholders knew that such a step was contemplated, and shares were forfeited for non-payment of that call. It seemed that at present they had no remedy whatever. The Act itself had no provision to protect shareholders in this matter, as all it required was a majority of shareholders present at the meeting to make the change. Mr Sorrensen said the shareholders should look after these matters when adopting Articles of Association. The Chairman said the local shareholders had no chance to do so. Mr Sorrensen said local shareholders could arrange to be represented by proxy in London at all shareholders' meetings. Mr Curtis said he quite sympathised with the object Mr MacDonnell aimed at, but he strongly deprecated inviting any further mining legislation, good or bad. He thought what was wanted could be secured by common agreement rather than legislation. Mr R. Rose said he was a shareholder in some English companies, and was represented by proxy at all meetings by an attorney. The Chairman said oven then only 14 days' notice was given of a meeting, so there was no time to communicate save by cable. It would be far better if each company had its representative in this colony, who in such cases could call a meeting •of local shareholders, submit proposals, and cable the decision to London. He was himself a shareholder in the N.Z. Talisman Company, but could not get any definite information with regard to the recent increase of capital. It was only supposed that those shares were to be issued to a company that was to pay in (£25,000 for the erection of a battery. Whether that was true or not, the local representative was not in a position to state. Mr Sorrensen suggested that the matter be referred to the Legal Committee of the Council. Mr W. R. Bloomfleld considered there was also another matter worthy the attention of the Chamber, namely, the lack of information furnished by English companies to local shareholders. He was a shareholder in a company, and yet could get.no information as to the position of affairs. Despite what had been said about interfering with mining laws, he felt that local shareholders were entitled to some consideration. On the motion of Mr S. T. George, both matters were referred to the Legal Committee of the Chamber.