Paul Segaert Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed)

[2005] NSWSC 144

CITATION:	Paul Segaert Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) [2005] NSWSC 144
HEARING DATE(S):	9 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	9 February 2005
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Hamilton J
DECISION:	Convening period for meeting of creditors extended under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 439A.

CATCHWORDS:	CORPORATIONS [180] - Voluntary administration - Creditors' meeting - Application to extend time to convene - Relevant considerations - Advantageous sale requires additional time for completion.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 439A & 447A
CASES CITED:	Re Daisytek Australia Pty Limited (admin apptd) (2003) 45 ASCR 446 Re New Horizons Corporation; ex parte De Vries [2004] NSWSC 253 Re TPE Kintek Pty Ltd (admin apptd); Ex Parte Carter (as admin) (2004) 49 ASCR 106
PARTIES:	Paul Segaert Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) (P) Paul Andrew Billingham (P2) Trevor Mark Progroske (P3)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 1429/05
COUNSEL:	J A Soars (Ps)
SOLICITORS:	Henry Davis York (Ps)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2005

1429/05 PAUL SEGAERT PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under s 439A(6) and also under s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the CA”). The application under s 439A(6) is for an extension of the convening period for the meeting of creditors under s 439A.

2 This is a company to which receivers and managers were appointed before the voluntary administrators were appointed. The receivers and managers are in the process of selling the enterprise of the company, or part of it. That sale cannot be completed before the expiry of the convening period, but on the evidence it is likely to be completed shortly thereafter. The sale, if carried through, will produce a surplus of some $1 to $1.8 million out of which the administrators will be able to deal with the obligations of the company other than under the security which led to the appointment of the receivers.

3 The exercise which must be carried out in determining these applications is familiar. It was recently summarised as follows by Austin J in Re New Horizons Corporation; ex parte De Vries [2004] NSWSC 253 at [5]:

“The Court’s task is to balance the need for the administration of a company to be carried out as efficiently and expeditiously as practicable so as to minimise the effect on those persons who are subject to the moratorium imposed by Part 5.3A, against the need to give the administrators time to present meaningful choices to the creditors at their meeting (see in Re Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited [2003] FCA 598 per Lindgren J).”

4 A relevant consideration is the attitude of creditors. There is evidence that at the first meeting of creditors there was a unanimous resolution approving an application by the administrators to extend the convening period for up to one month and there is other evidence that the extension is in accordance with the wishes of creditors with no opposition. In these circumstances, I am prepared to grant the 26 days extension requested. I am also prepared to give flexibility to permit the meeting to be held at an earlier time than the CA would otherwise permit, if the administrators are ready earlier to proceed with the meeting. That will be done by an appropriate order under s 447A(1) of the CA along the lines approved by the Court by Lindgren J in Re Daisytek Australia Pty Limited (admin apptd) (2003) 45 ASCR 446 and by Austin J in Re TPE Kintek Pty Ltd (admin apptd); Ex Parte Carter (as admin) (2004) 49 ASCR 106.

5 For these reasons I propose to make orders in accordance with the formal orders submitted to me, initialled by me and placed with the papers. I direct that orders 2 and 3 may be entered forthwith. The exhibit may be returned.

**********