Case: Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 363
Outcome: cited
The aspect of the matter which has caused me concern is that a period of months is a substantial stretch of the statutory provisions. I know it has been done in other cases. Some of those cases for example, Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 363 bear at least some resemblance to the present case, both because of the nature of the corporations and because of the closeness in time to the present collapse. Having considered the evidence in this case, I think that it is too early to commit to such a lengthy period before the creditors have any real say in the matter. 4 A course which is taken in some of these matters and was, I notice, taken in Fincorp [2007] NSWSC 363 , is to provide for a lengthy period but also, by an order under s 447A , permit foreshortening of the period if events warrant it. Other courses which can be taken are, if a case is made out, to utilise s 447A to extend the period for which the creditors can adjourn the meeting pursuant to s 439B or to utilise s 447A to grant a further extension of the convening period under s 439A. The latter course has been taken in a number of matters. It seems to me that would be the appropriate course to be taken in these matters if necessary. 5 I take into account, amongst other factors, the opposition of at least one secured creditor in the Estate Property Group case, albeit a creditor who has not filed evidence and is not present. I take into account the short notice of this application to creditors generally and to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. I also have in mind the link between the two cases and the fact that the applications are also linked with an extension of the decision period pursuant to s 441A in relation to the rights of Australian Capital Reserve Limited. On the other hand, I take into account the fact that I should not be building up costs or causing too much diversion of effort by the administrators in making successive applications to the Court instead of getting on with their job. I think there is sufficient flexibility built into these matters if I commit to the use of s 447A to fix a further extension of the convening period if appropriate. I will ensure that there is an adequate extension of the convening period after the date to which the matters will be adjourned so that, even if I am not persuaded there should be a further extension, there will be a practical way of coping with the situation. 6 In each of these matters, namely, Estate Property Group Limited, NSD 1079 of 2007 and Australian Capital Reserve Limited, NSD 1085 of 2007, I make orders respectively in accordance with the short minutes of order which I have initialled and placed with the papers in each matter. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 20 June 2007 Counsel for the Plaintiffs in NSD 1079 of 2007: Mr CRC Newlinds SC, Mr G Lucarelli Solicitor for the Plaintiffs in NSD 1079 of 2007: Minter Ellison Counsel for South Canterbury Finance Limited, Australian Executors Trustees (SA) Limited, GP Mortgage Corporation Limited in NSD 1079 of 2007: Mr AJ McInerney Solicitors for South Canterbury Finance Limited, Australian Executors Trustees (SA) Limited, GP Mortgage Corporation Limited in NSD 1079 of 2007: Gray &amp; Perkins Counsel for the Plaintiffs in NSD 1085 of 2007: Mr JC Sheahan SC Solicitor for the Plaintiffs in NSD 1085 of 2007: Baker &amp; McKenzie Date of Hearing: 15 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 15 June 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/935.html