Contributed By Mayne Wetherell
The last 12 months have seen the global economy facing challenges such as the war in Ukraine, economic slowdown, rising interest rates and concerns about recessions. These factors are affecting various industries – particularly the commercial deal-making sector, which includes joint ventures (JVs). So far, the market has shown mixed signals in the sector – there has been an evident slowdown for mergers and acquisitions (M&A) but the situation for JVs has been more complex, with a reduction in the number of deals (though activity is not at a complete halt).
New Zealand’s election year adds further caution regarding investments and business decisions due to potential policy changes. Overall, the economic and political environment is intricate, marked by present and anticipated slowdowns. The authors have seen a trend of deals being delayed, and a greater focus on thorough research is becoming standard practice, as companies carefully assess their options before entering into JVs.
Despite the cautious atmosphere, JVs are still being pursued, driven in part by available private capital. However, investors are being patient for the right opportunities. The challenging macroeconomic environment has compelled businesses to be more deliberate and considerate in their decisions.
Certain industries have fared noticeably better than others during recent times. There has been a rise in trade buyer activity, and with the economic slowdown this could lead to trade buyers becoming more competitive bidders due to higher finance costs and limited debt availability. Potential fluctuations in the market that may be expected include a rise in distressed deals due to the macroeconomic changes, with higher interest rates and the overall economic/political uncertainty.
Similarly, sectors such as retail, hospitality and food manufacturing are expected to be more negatively affected by inflation and cost challenges relative to other sectors, likely making them less attractive for potential investors and resulting in less commercial deal making activity in this space.
The typical types of JVs used in New Zealand’s jurisdiction are:
Incorporated JVs – Limited Liability Companies
Incorporated JVs typically take the form of a limited liability company (JVCo) incorporated under the Companies Act 1993 (the “Companies Act”). In a JVCo, the JV parties are shareholders, appoint directors, and typically enter into a JV or shareholders’ agreement which governs the operations and decision-making of the JVCo.
A JVCo has the benefit of a separate legal personality from its shareholders and board of directors. Shareholders of a JVCo receive dividends, and imputation credits can be utilised to mitigate double taxation. Subject to the JVCo’s constitution, directors can act in the best interests of their appointing shareholder/JV participant.
A notable benefit of a JVCo is limited liability, safeguarding shareholders and directors from the JVCo’s debts and obligations. However, when contracting, shareholders or directors may be required to provide personal or parent company guarantees in support of the JVCo’s obligations, diminishing the extent of the limited liability protection. A JVCo also permits flexible funding options through share capital or debt, but careful consideration should be given to existing financial arrangements, group accounting and management protocols.
Limited Partnership JVs
A limited partnership (LP) is a form of partnership involving general partners, who are liable for all the debts and liabilities of the partnership, and limited partners, who are liable to the extent of their capital contribution to the partnership, provided they have not been involved in the management of the LP.
An LP has the benefit of a separate legal personality from its partners (similar to an incorporated entity such as a limited liability company), while enjoying the tax benefits typically enjoyed by an unincorporated JV, such as a traditional partnership, with income and losses flowing directly to the limited partners based on their personal tax status.
As mentioned above, general partners typically have unlimited liability for the debts and liabilities of the LP; however, this unlimited liability can often be limited by utilising a limited liability entity as the general partner. Limited partners have limited liability on the basis they don’t participate in the LP’s management, although there are various “safe harbour” activities that the limited partners may involve themselves in without being considered to be involved in the management. If limited partners involve themselves in the management of the LP outside these safe harbour activities, they lose the protection of limited liability and will be treated similar to a general partner.
Other benefits to an LP structure include that it offers more privacy to limited partners compared to a limited liability company (as limited partners are not required to be publicly disclosed) and there is more flexibility in profit allocation compared to in a company. The drawbacks are that LPs can be more complicated in set up, as under the Limited Partnership Act 2008, all LPs are required to have entered into a limited partnership agreement, which governs the operations of the LP.
Unincorporated JVs
In an unincorporated JV, each participant contributes through their existing structures to achieving a common objective. An unincorporated JV is not a separate legal entity, and typically the participants have an agreement outlining their rights and obligations, with profits and losses flowing through to each JV party.
Specifically, a careful assessment and a well-crafted JV agreement is necessary to address the concern that an unincorporated JV may be considered a partnership under the Partnership Law Act 2019, impacting on profit, loss and liability sharing. Partners in a partnership have unlimited joint liability for debts and owe fiduciary duties to each other. Aside from this, the tax treatment of an unincorporated JV partnership is similar to an LP.
In an unincorporated JV that is not a partnership, the JV parties maintain separate businesses but share costs until the production or output stage. They can agree to allocate profits and losses differently, and each party retains ownership of its property. Liability may still be unlimited for each party, although this may be circumvented through the use of limited liability entities as the JV parties.
An unincorporated JV appeals to investors seeking maximum tax deductions as it is not subject to loss limitation rules, allowing full deductions for tax losses. This structure could also be attractive for those who have concerns around the dividend payment capabilities of an incorporated limited liability company.
The choice of appropriate JV vehicle depends on several factors and considerations. The primary drivers for selecting a specific JV vehicle include the following.
Ultimately, the choice of appropriate JV vehicle depends on a careful evaluation of these factors, along with the specific objectives, preferences and the circumstances of the JV parties.
The primary regulator (and relevant legislation) governing JVs is the Registrar of Companies, holding office under the Companies Act (typically referred to as the New Zealand Companies Office). The Companies Office is responsible for maintaining and administering companies incorporated under the Companies Act, and limited partnerships established under the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. New Zealand companies and limited partnerships are able to manage and update relevant information in relation to their entities, including updated changes in shareholdings and directors.
The main legislation in New Zealand that governs anti-money laundering (AML) obligations is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (the “AML/CFT Act”). The AML/CFT Act places obligations on New Zealand’s financial institutions, casinos, virtual assets service providers, accountants, lawyers, conveyancers and high-value dealers to detect and deter money laundering and terrorism financing.
While there are various sanctions laws in New Zealand that may affect or restrict JVs, there are no specific restrictions targeted towards JVs. The following sanctions laws could affect co-operation with JV partners in New Zealand.
Similarly, the regulations and legislation above can apply to the formation of a JV in New Zealand.
The Commerce Act governs competition and antitrust law in New Zealand. JVs involving any acquisition of assets of a business, or of shares, will be caught by the Commerce Act’s merger control provisions if that acquisition substantially lessens competition in a market. The legislation also prohibits collective restrictive trade practices that involve:
However, the Commerce Act does contain a collaborative activity exception which replaced the former JV exception. The exception applies to a cartel provision in an agreement if the parties to the agreement are involved in a collaborative activity (a co-operative enterprise, venture or other activity, in trade that is not carried on for the dominant purpose of lessening competition) and the cartel provision is reasonably necessary for the purpose of the collaborative activity.
There are no specific rules in New Zealand concerning listed party participants in JVs.
Certain “ultimate beneficial ownership” (UBO) disclosures apply to companies incorporated under the Companies Act. All companies are required to disclose whether they have an “ultimate holding company” (UHC), being a body corporate that, usually by having a majority shareholding, has control of the company. A UHC is not a subsidiary of another body corporate.
It is considered in the public’s interest to know who has a controlling interest in a company’s board, management and policies.
To the extent a JV party holds a majority shareholding and has control over the JVCo, UBO information may need to be disclosed with respect to that JV party.
There have not been any significant court decisions or legal developments in New Zealand within the past three years relating specifically to JVs or business collaboration.
When JV parties are first considering entering into JV arrangements with one another, during the negotiation stage, the following documents may be utilised:
Generally, the discussions between prospective JV parties will be confidential and there are no regulatory requirements for disclosing discussions on JVs.
The steps required to set up a JV vehicle ultimately depend on the type of JV vehicle being established; regardless of this type, a JV agreement of some form will be entered into by the parties to the JV.
LP
To establish an LP, an LP agreement first needs to be entered into between the limited partners, the general partner and the LP, following which the LP can be registered online via the LP register. There is an application fee payable on registration. While an LP cannot be registered unless the relevant parties have entered into a partnership agreement, there is no requirement for the partnership agreement to be disclosed on the LP register.
Unincorporated JV
When establishing an unincorporated JV, there is no need to establish any specific JV entities. Instead, the parties will look to enter into a JV agreement that sets out what each party is contributing and that governs the arrangements and decision-making of the parties.
JVCo
To establish a JVCo, a new company would be incorporated under the Companies Act and registered online via the New Zealand Companies Office register. The JV parties will be recorded as the shareholders of the company, and relevant individuals appointed as directors of the JVCo. The shareholders and directors are required to sign consent forms, agreeing to becoming shareholders/directors of the JVCo.
In addition, details of the shareholders and directors are publicly disclosed on the Companies Office register. There is an application fee payable on incorporation. While it is not mandatory to adopt a constitution on incorporation, given the parties will be entering into a shareholders’ agreement/JV agreement that sets out the agreed arrangements between the JV partners as shareholders, it would be appropriate to adopt a form of constitution for the JVCo that aligns with the provisions of the shareholders’ agreement/JV agreement.
If the JVCo adopts a constitution, this document is uploaded and is made publicly available on the Companies Officer register. However, there is no such requirement to publicly disclose the shareholders’ agreement/JV agreement.
Irrespective of the different forms of JV vehicle, the main terms governing the JV should be contained in the JV agreement. The main terms for a corporate JV agreement should cover:
An LP agreement tends to be more complex in certain areas and, in addition to the above, contains the following core terms:
Similarly to other corporate agreements, the terms will be subject to negotiation between the parties.
Decision-making in a JV is typically established through an agreed-upon governance structure and outlined in the JV agreement, shareholders’ agreement or limited partnership agreement.
The specific framework for decision-making can vary depending on the nature of the JV, the negotiation and power dynamics between the parties, and the preferences of the JV parties involved.
It is important for the JV agreement to clearly define the decision-making process, including:
The agreement should also address dispute resolution mechanisms for handling disagreements that may arise during the decision-making process.
Ultimately, the specific decision-making structure within a JV depends on the goals, preferences and negotiated terms between the parties involved. It is thus crucial that the JV agreement is drafted accordingly to accurately reflect the arrangement.
The funding of a JV can vary depending on the specific agreement between the parties involved. It is common for JVs to be funded through a combination of debt and equity, but the exact mix and proportions may be determined by various factors, including the financial resources of the JV parties and the nature of the venture.
One of the key considerations in determining the JV structure is the flexibility in changing ownership control and tax considerations. For example, with a JVCo, which inherently provides more flexibility in ownership control, there might be more incentive for the parties to opt for equity funding. Alternatively, in an LP there are tax limitations for adding or selling LP shares, and the parties may prefer to fund the venture through debt as a result.
The JV agreement may specify whether the parties have obligations to provide future funding to the JV entity. This can include commitments to contribute additional capital as the venture progresses or as specified milestones are achieved. Such obligations are typically outlined in the agreement and are subject to negotiation between the parties.
If a participant wishes to provide additional equity funding to the JV entity, resulting in changes in ownership, this would typically be addressed through an amendment to the JV agreement or through a separate agreement. The details of the equity funding, including the amount, terms and resulting ownership percentages, would need to be negotiated and agreed upon by all relevant parties.
The amendment or separate agreement would outline the process for the new equity funding, including any required approvals, the valuation of the JV entity and the adjustment of ownership percentages. It may also address any potential dilution of ownership for existing participants and mechanisms to ensure fairness and to protect the rights of all JV parties.
It is crucial to have clear provisions in the JV agreement regarding future equity funding, ownership changes and related matters to ensure transparency, to protect the interests of the parties and to avoid potential disputes.
Deadlocks between the board and the JV partners in a JV are typically addressed through mechanisms outlined in the JV agreement or shareholders' agreement. These mechanisms aim to facilitate decision-making and resolve disputes when the parties are unable to reach a consensus. The usual option taken when deadlocks occur is for the status quo to remain, whereby the parties shall continue on the basis that the resolution which gave rise to the issue has not been passed. If a party is insistent on not keeping the status quo than some common approaches to dealing with deadlocks are:
It is crucial to have clear deadlock resolution mechanisms in the JV agreement to ensure that deadlocks do not impede the progress and success of the venture.
In addition to the JV agreement or shareholders’ agreement, various other documents may be required depending on the specific nature of the JV and the activities involved. Some common documents include the following.
In the case of a JVCo, the structure of the board of directors will vary depending on the agreement between the participants. This includes an LP where the general partnership is formed by the limited partners as an incorporated entity – ie, the limited partners each hold shares in the general partnership.
Typical structures include proportional representation whereby the board reflects the respective ownership stake of each of the parties. In some cases, there may be equal representation regardless of participants’ ownership interest where there is a high degree of trust between the parties.
In New Zealand, weighted voting rights are used to ensure board control with JV or shareholders’ agreements containing a proportionate voting clause, ensuring that the member(s) appointed by each participant and present at a meeting of the board have such number of votes as is proportionate to the interest of the participant which appointed them.
The authors also note that it is not unusual for the general partner of an LP to be a special purpose company incorporated by the JV parties for the purpose of acting as general partner. In this case, the general partner company is another JV between the parties, with the board structure being set up in a manner that allows the JV parties to exercise control over the LP, without breaching any of the “safe harbour” activities that would result in the limited partners losing their limited liability.
In New Zealand, director’s duties are governed by a complex combination of general law and statutory rules, including Sections 131 to 138 of the Companies Act. The primary duty of a director in New Zealand is to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company. There are also obligations regarding exercising powers for a proper purpose, and not engaging in reckless trading.
In regard to how these duties are weighed against a competing duty that a director may have to the JV participant that installed them, under the Companies Act a director of a company that is carrying out a JV between the shareholders may, when exercising powers or performing duties as a director in connection with the carrying out of the JV, and if expressly permitted to do so by the constitution of the JVCo, act in a manner which they believe is in the best interests of the shareholder or JV party that appointed them, even though it may not be in the best interests of the JVCo. However, it is important to note that the constitution of a JVCo has no effect to the extent that it contravenes, or is inconsistent with, the Companies Act.
Subject to any restrictions contained in the constitution of the company, the board of a company may delegate certain of its powers to a committee of directors, a single director or an employee of the company. However, the board remains responsible for the delegate’s exercise of that power as if they had exercised the power themselves, unless they had reasonable grounds to believe that the delegate would fulfil their duties in accordance with the company’s constitution and the Companies Act and they actively monitored the delegate’s exercise of the power using reasonable methods.
The JV agreement or shareholders’ agreement will determine how conflicts of interest are managed. The agreement should expressly state the number of directors each participant may appoint and remove, without restricting who these directors may be.
There should also be a “Best Interests” provision that states whether a director may act in a manner which that director believes to be in the best interests of the participant that appointed that director, even though it may not be in the best interests of company.
Lastly an “Interested Directors” provision would set out whether a director who is interested in the transaction at hand can vote on the matter, and whether they are to be included in the quorum of directors considering the transaction. In general, it is unlikely to be considered inappropriate for a person to take a seat on the JVCo board as a consequence of their position in the JV participant.
The key IP issues that should be considered when setting up a JVCo include the following.
In contractual collaborations, key IP issues to consider include the following.
In the JV agreement, IP issues are typically dealt with through dedicated provisions addressing the following.
Whether IP rights should be licensed or assigned depends on the specific circumstances and objectives of the parties involved. Considerations such as long-term goals, control preferences, revenue-sharing and IP value should guide the decision on which approach is most suitable for the JV. Both licensing and assignment have different implications and considerations.
Licensing IP Rights
Retained ownership
When IP rights are licensed, the IP owner retains ownership of the IP while granting specific rights to another party. This allows the IP owner to maintain control and potentially exploit the IP in other collaborations or business ventures.
Flexibility
Licensing provides flexibility for the IP owner to grant different levels of rights to different parties. They can determine the scope, duration and exclusivity of the licence, allowing for tailored agreements based on specific needs.
Ongoing relationships
Licensing can be beneficial in cases where the IP owner wants to maintain a long-term relationship or collaboration with the licensee. It allows for continued involvement and potential revenue-sharing through royalty payments or licensing fees.
Monitoring and quality control
With a licence, the IP owner can maintain control over the use of the IP and ensure that it is used in a manner consistent with their standards and requirements. Quality control provisions can be included in the licence agreement to safeguard the reputation and integrity of the IP.
Assigning IP Rights
Transferring ownership
Assigning IP rights involves transferring ownership of the IP from one party to another. This means the assignee becomes the new owner of the IP, and the assignor relinquishes all rights and control over the IP.
Clear ownership and control
Assigning IP rights can provide certainty and clarity, particularly when there is a desire for a clean transfer of ownership and control. It eliminates the need for ongoing relationships or potential conflicts related to licensing agreements.
Value and monetisation
Assigning IP rights can be advantageous when the IP owner wishes to receive a one-time payment or consideration in exchange for the transfer. This can be particularly beneficial if the IP has significant market value or if the owner wants to exit a particular business sector.
Limited involvement
Once IP rights are assigned, the assignor typically has no ongoing involvement or control over the IP. This may be advantageous if the assignor wants to focus on other ventures or does not wish to be responsible for the management and enforcement of the IP.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are becoming increasingly more important in today’s commercial landscape, both globally and domestically in New Zealand. As ESG factors become more prevalent in corporate decision-making and risk management, clients will increasingly rely on legal counsel to:
In 2019, a survey conducted by the New Zealand Sustainable Business Council revealed that 87% of New Zealanders considered sustainability to be a prevalent mainstream issue, with 47% expressing their consideration for sustainability when deciding on a brand or product to buy.
Currently, the case of Smith v Fonterra & Ors is a significant climate change proceeding in New Zealand, awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court. The claim is against seven companies, alleging their contribution to climate change on the basis of negligence, nuisance and a proposed new tort imposing a duty not to interfere with the climate system. The courts have so far struck out these claims and the judgment by the Supreme Court on the appeal is currently pending. If the case proceeds, it could set a precedent for similar actions by activists against various enterprises, including government entities. The Supreme Court had also allowed the involvement of additional organisations in the hearing, suggesting a potential for increased climate action litigation and climate change matters becoming increasingly more relevant to commercial enterprises.
The government has likewise faced claims from climate change activists, where recently two judicial review proceedings were filed against the Climate Change Commission (the “Commission”) and the Minister for Climate Change for not acting lawfully in its advice and approach in meeting New Zealand’s Paris Agreement targets. Though these claims were dismissed, the court did provide an inference in discouraging the Commission from seeking costs against the unsuccessful applicant, noting that climate change is an important issue with challenge and debate potentially resulting in improved outcomes, ultimately bolstering the credibility of the relevant institution. This is likely to encourage other activists in bringing similar claims in the future.
In October 2021, the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act (FSAA) amended the FMCA (inserting Part 7A, the new mandatory climate-related disclosure (CRD) regime), the Public Audit Act 2001 and the Financial Reporting Act 2013, making it a mandatory requirement for specified entities to prepare climate statements. The CRD regime is expected to capture around 200 New Zealand financial institutions and listed companies. It is likely that non-captured entities will also be influenced by this and proceed to evaluate their business strategy with more ESG factors in mind.
More recently, in 2023, the Companies Act was also amended to provide that, in addition to the duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company, and for the avoidance of doubt, in considering the best interests of a company a director may also consider matters other than the maximisation of profit (for example, ESG matters). The clear reference to ESG in a significant requirement under the Companies Act is a reflection of the shift towards sustainability and responsible investing.
With the growing importance of ESG factors, more legal frameworks and guidelines have been introduced to prevent deceptive ESG claims – ie, “greenwashing”. Along with the FCAA, the Commerce Commission released guidelines in 2020 on environmental claims, and it is likely that guidelines relating to broader ESG claims will be introduced in the future. Notably, in 2022 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Complaints Board removed a “going zero carbon” advertisement by a gas company, reasoning that they had a due sense of social responsibility for this socially significant issue and that, without detail of how this target would be met, the advertisement had not met the ASA’s standard.
Based on the above, JV participants or the JV entity should be taking action or implementing measures in connection with ESG. As ESG factors are becoming more relevant, so too are the potential social and legal ramifications. It would be beneficial for those entities to rethink current business practices with ESG more in mind, and to strategise accordingly for the future to reduce risk and improve economic performance.
The main ESG regulations in New Zealand are:
JV arrangements in New Zealand can come to an end in several ways – for example, when the JV has completed its purpose it may naturally terminate, or there may be mutual termination of the JV or a set expiry of the JV on a certain date. In each case, specific terms and conditions should be outlined in the JV agreement or shareholders’ agreement, which will dictate how the JV will come to an end.
The general matters that should be dealt with on termination of the JV are:
It is important to note that the terms of termination should be agreed upon in advance and included in the JV agreement. This can help avoid disputes and ensure that all parties are aware of their rights and obligations.
In general, in New Zealand there is no difference between assets originally contributed to the JV by a JV participant and assets originating from the JV itself. Participants would hold the assets of the JV as tenants in common in undivided or specified shares based on each party’s individual contribution to the JV, with these shares being the separate assets held by each participant.
There is no standard method of distribution of JV assets, whether via liquidation or redistribution proportionate to contribution – ultimately, this arrangement is governed by contractual agreement.
Level 5
Bayleys House
30 Gaunt Street
Auckland
New Zealand
+64 9 921 6000
+64 9 921 6001
info@mw.nz www.maynewetherell.com