Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Superfine Printing Co Pty Limited (administrators appointed) Adam Farnsworth and Adam Shepard in their capacity as the joint and several voluntary administrators of Superfine Printing Co Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 888 Hearing dates: 8 August 2011 Decision date: 08 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: Orders in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Originating Process Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - application to extend time to hold adjourned second meeting of creditors - ss 439A, 439B(2), 447A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - reg 5.6.18(2) Corporations Regulations - where little utility to hold adjourned meeting earlier - wide operation of s 447A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - extension of time granted Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Re Porter and Another as Joint Administrators of Priceright Construction Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2006] NSWSC 324 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Adam Farnsworth and Adam Shepard in their capacity as the joint and several voluntary administrators of Superfine Printing Co Pty Limited Representation: Counsel: M.J Rosenblatt - Solicitor - Plaintiff Solicitor: Somerset Ryckmans - Plaintiff File Number(s): 2011/254635 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Originating Process for an order under s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Act") which provides that the Court may make such order as it thinks appropriate about how this Part is to operate in relation to a particular company. The order will have the effect of extending the period for the holding of the adjourned second meeting of creditors in circumstances set out in the affidavit of the voluntary administrator, Mr Farnsworth. 2The order will have the effect that despite the operation of Reg 5.6.18(2) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) , s 439B(2) of the Act will operate as if the section provides that the meeting convened under s 439A of the Act and held on 20 June 2011 will be adjourned to a date not later than 22 November 2011. 3There is undoubtedly jurisdiction to make such an order given the wide operation of s 447A of the Act which enables the Court to make any order it thinks appropriate as to how Pt 5.3A of the Act is to operate in relation to a particular company; see Re Porter and Another as Joint Administrators of Priceright Construction Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2006] NSWSC 324 per Barrett J. In that case his Honour made an order to the same effect as the one sought here. 4The basis for the present application is that on 20 June 2011 the creditors resolved to adjourn the second meeting to a date on or before 22 August 2011. There will be no utility in holding the meeting on or before that time because there is at present an insurance claim which is the subject of correspondence and which will not be resolved or the position of the parties will not be resolved before that date. It is accordingly appropriate that the order sought should be made. 5However, his Honour made an additional order, given that the application was brought ex parte, reserving leave to any person claiming to be interested to make an application to vary the substantive order upon 24 hours notice to the plaintiffs. As his Honour thought there, I think this is a sensible precaution and one which should, despite the fact that it is unlikely to be availed of, be taken in the present case. 6I make orders in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Originating Process. 7In addition, any person claiming to be interested has leave upon 24 hours notice to the plaintiffs to apply to vary those orders. 8The orders are to be taken out forthwith. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 August 2011