WINDING-UP PETITION

Evening Star, Issue 24289, 2 September 1942, Page 4

WINDING-UP PETITION

ASSOCIATED GOLD DREDGES DUNEDIN FIRM'S APPLICATION (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Sept. 1. Leave to present a winding-up petition against Associated Gold Dredges (N.Z.) Ltd. was granted to A. and T. Burt Ltd., Dunedin, by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court today. The application was made under the Debtors Emergency Regulations by the company, which was one of three firms that built dredges for Associated Dredges. These firms were owed a total of £49,012. Mr J. M. Paterson, of Dunedin, for A. and T. Burt Ltd., said that three dredges had been built, and the amounts owing were: Burts, £19,008; Dunedin Engineering and Steel Company, £14,220; and Andersens Ltd., £15,784. The last claim might he subject to adjustment. _ Mr Paterson said the company’s nominal capital was £450,000, in 445,000 ordinary shares of £1 each, and 100,000 deferred shares of Is each. The_ subscribed capital was £295,000 ordinary and £19,050 deferred. The Bank of Australasia had the first,floating charge on the assets of the company, arid a debenture for £50,000 was given to the bank on October 13, 1939. . The company’s total liabilities at present were £104,335. The principal liability was £50,965 to the Bank of Australasia, but this had been reduced by payment to £38,965. Mr Paterson submitted that at present the Bank of Australasia was exercising the rights of a receiver in connection with the company’s assets. That had led to the trouble the contractors had had in getting paid. The bank was acting as the actual receiver without having taken any steps necessary to crystallise its floating charge on the company’s assets. ‘When the company knew that these proceedings were going to he taken by the unpaid contractors after there had been protracted negotiations, it paid £12,000 to the bank in reduction of the floating charge. That was a most daring thing to do.

Mr A. W. Brown, for Associated Dredges, said the present position was that a call was being made which would net more than £l4jooo. Any order for winding up at this particular stage would be disastrous for the company. The company was solvent, but the difficulty in the past was that it had not been, allowed to use the money available. Mr Brown asked that the court should postpone the case for some reasonable time- to allow the company to make some arrangements by which its debts could be met to satisfy its creditors. Within a matter of a few months the contractors would be receiving payment. A call was being made and gold production was increasing. Mr J ustice ‘Northcroft said he was of the opinion that leave should be granted. The special regulations under which the application had been made had withheld from these creditors the right to pursue their normal remedies. They had been rendered impotent against a stronger and more influential creditor than themselves. In all the circumstances the creditors were entitled to pursue their rights. Costs were awarded against th# company.