UNUSUAL CASE

Southland Times, Issue 20044, 4 December 1926, Page 8

UNUSUAL CASE

COMPANIES ACT. PETITION TO SUPREME COURT. (Per United Press Association 'i Dunedin, December 3. In the Supreme Court to-day, his Honour, Mr Justice Sim, heard a petition by Alexander Milne Begg, praying that the company of Charles Begg and Co., Ltd., be wound up by the Court under the provisions of the Companies Act. Mr W. G. Hay appeared in support of the petition. It was stated that Mr Alexander Begg had been managing director since the inception of the present company and he claimed that the success of the business, which now possessed assets to the value of £200,000, was largely due to his efforts. At the present time he found himself in a rather unfortunate position, the company being a family concern, and had with the acquiescence of the shareholders made advances to certain shareholders from time to time against their holdings in the company. At the present time the petitioner owed the company £12,000 in respect of such advances and the company now demanded payment of these loans. He had commenced an action to recover the same. Petitioner had confessed to judgment that he was not in a position to repay without having to resort to the shares in the company held by him which were valued at £41,776. All the shareholders knew petitioner was obtaining advances as these appeared in the reports of the auditors, and it was now alleged that he was in debt to the company without the consent of the other shareholders. Owing to the fact that the company was a private one persons who were not already shareholders were not disposed to purchase these shares, a fact which precluded petitioner selling at a fair value. If the other shareholders liked to force the position it would ruin the petitioner. The whole affair had risen out of ill-feeling between the members of the family. His Honour asked why such a wealthy company did not settle its difficulties in private. It was washing its dirty linen in public. Mr Hay said there was every reason why the company should be made a public one. It had assets of nearly £200,000, and it was unfortunate that its affairs had to be made public. Counsel discussed the matter during the adjournment, and at the afternoon sitting of the Court it was announced that an agreement had been reached between the parties and would be signed for presentation at the Court on Tuesday.