NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 143 — 27 NOVEMBER 2014

the company may be different, and the financial statements of the company may not be compatible in all respects with financial statements prepared in accordance with New Zealand law;

vii. information or statements to the following effect under the heading “Agreement as to Jurisdiction”:

A. that, in respect of a dispute concerning the specified futures contracts, the company:

1. agrees to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts;

2. has instructed the New Zealand agent for service referred to in subparagraph C. to accept service on the company’s behalf;

3. agrees that this statement is an agreement with each investor for the purposes of section 389(1)(e) of the Companies Act 1993; and

B. that, despite the statements referred to in subparagraph A., the specified futures contracts may not always be enforceable in New Zealand courts; and

C. the name and contact address of the person in New Zealand who has been appointed by the company to accept service in New Zealand of any document on its behalf; and

p. at the same time as the specified futures contracts are made available by the company to New Zealand investors in reliance on the authorisation in this notice, those specified futures contracts are also made available to Australian investors in accordance with the laws of Australia.

Dated at Wellington this 19th day of November 2014.

ELAINE CAMPBELL, Director of Compliance.

2014-au7214

Notification of Amendments to Input Methodologies Applicable to Electricity Distribution Businesses, Gas Pipeline Businesses and Airports

Pursuant to section 52W of the Commerce Act 1986 (the “Act”), the Commerce Commission (“Commission”) gives the following notice.

The input methodologies applicable to electricity distribution businesses, gas pipeline businesses and airports under Part 4 of the Act have been amended by the High Court under section 52Z(3)(b)(i) of the Act.

The amendments relate to the following determinations:

• Electricity Distribution Services Input Methodologies Determination 2012, [2012] NZCC 26 (the “EDB IM Determination”);
• Gas Distribution Services Input Methodologies Determination 2012, [2012] NZCC 27 (the “GDB IM Determination”);
• Gas Transmission Services Input Methodologies Determination 2012, [2012] NZCC 28 (the “GTB IM Determination”); and
• Commerce Act (Specified Airport Services Input Methodologies) Determination 2010 (Commerce Commission Decision No. 709, 22 December 2010) (the “Airport IM Determination”).

The amendments are set out in the Publication of Electricity, Gas, and Airport Input Methodology Amendments order by the High Court (“Amendment”).

The Amendment amends the input methodologies for reconsideration of default price-quality paths set out in Subpart 5 of Part 4 of the EDB IM determination the GDB IM Determination, and the GTB IM Determination.

The Amendment also amends the input methodologies contained in the Airport IM Determination for:

i. the initial valuation date for land; and

ii. Auckland International Airport Limited’s cost of constructing the Northern Runway.

This amendment gives effect to the High Court decision in Wellington International Airports Ltd and others v Commerce Commission [2013] NZHC 3289.

Copies of the amendments determined by the High Court are available on the Commission’s website at www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/input-methodologies-2/amendments-and-clarifications/
and are available for inspection free of charge at the Commission (during ordinary office hours), or for purchase.