NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2370, 3 August 1899, Page 9

NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION.

RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME CONFIRMED.

(Fhom Odb Special Coebes^ondent.) LONDON, June 3. ■J?or some time past a scheme for the reconstruction of the New Zealand Agricultural Company has been before the courts, and has now been decided upon, the scheme having been sanctioned by Mr Justice Byrne on Wednesday in the Law Courts here. Briefly, the history of the affair is as fol.'lowb: — The company incorporated in 1879 with a capital of £1,000,000, but had not been successful. In August, 1890, the company was ordered to be wound up, and in March, 1891, the plainlitff, who were the debentureliolders of the company, obtained judgment for enforcement of their security. Several meetings had since been held, the general result of which was that the receiver and manager appointed in the action had been directed t.; continue the realisation. In February, 1899, in pursuance of an order of the present Lord Justice Rcmer, a meeting of the debenture-holders was held, at which the receiver and manager submitted a scheme for the jeco'ißtiuction of the company, by the. uvrV of which each debenture-holder in the old company was to receive debenture stock in lhe :new company to the amount of 12 per cent, of his holding in the old company, and fully-paid shares in the, new company to the amount of 21 per cent, of such holding. This echeme was opposed by some of the debenture-holders, who supported one for the sale of the at>sete to an assests realisation company. The scheme before the meeting was, •however, carried. Various objections were now taken at the healing of the summons, and among them one that the scheme was not made under the Joint Stock Companies' Arrangement Act, 1870, and would, therefore, •bind the debenture-holders only without being otherwise binding in the winding up, and also that the receiver and manager, when presiding over the meeting, should have put the - alternative scheme ac an amendment, or have adjourned the meeting. _ ) In giving judgment, Mr Justice Byrne said •that although the receiver might not have taken the right view of his power as chairman of the meeting, yet it was recognised that he had acted in the fairest possible manner, and 3iad 'called attention to the fact that shorthand notes were being taken of the discussion, and that the views of those present ■could afterwards be put before the court. The objectors had themselves voted for the resolution instead of trying to defeat it at the mpeting, as they t-aid, because they would have an opportunity of bringing their objections before the court. That had now been done. The objection that the court had no jurisdiction to enforce the scheme, and that the scheme was not made under the Act of 1870, was n.et by the terms of the trust deed ior securing the debentures, which contained especial provisions applicable to the law. The learned judge who had made the order convening the meeting for the sanction of the scheme would not have done so unless he had beeii of opinion that the special provisions of • the ({eed he could have sanctioned the scheme after it had be3n resolved upon at the meeting. A large majority had passed the resolution, and the views of those preferring the alternative scheme had been brought before the court, and he was unable to say that it was a better scheme, or one more agreeable, to the debenture-holder!), than that which he was asked to confirm. He therefore made an order on the summons approving the scheme.