© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2012] VSC 22
Supreme Court of Victoria
2012-01-30
JUDD J
Original judgment source is linked above.
CORPORATIONS - Further extension of time to convene second meeting of creditors - ss 439A(6), 447A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
**1 On 30 January 2012, orders were made further extending the period within which the plaintiffs, Salvatore Algeri, Timothy Bryce Norman and David John Frank Lombe, as joint and several administrators of Colorado Group Limited and nine other companies within the group, must convene the second meeting of directors. The application, made by the administrators, was supported by the receivers, James Stewart, Brendon Richards and Wil Colwell, all partners of Ferrier Hodgson. The application was made pursuant to ss 439A(6) and 447A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The extension is to expire on 3 August 2012.
2 An earlier extension had been granted on 4 May 2011 to expire on 3 February 2012. As with the earlier extension, orders were made on 30 January 2012 to ensure that the landlords of properties occupied by the group, along with creditors, were made aware of the orders and of their right to apply to the Court to vary the orders.
4 Prior to the appointment of the administrators and receivers, the Colorado Group operated 428 stores in Australia and New Zealand which sold apparel and footwear. Following their appointment the receivers continued to operate the businesses. They commenced a sale process for the businesses as a going concern and received approximately 60 expressions of interest and 17 non-binding indicative offers. None of the offers were acceptable.
5 In about June 2011 the receivers proposed a restructuring plan to the senior lenders to the group whereby key operating assets, including goodwill, fixtures and fittings, key contracts, intellectual property and its interest in shop leases would be sold to a company owned by the senior lenders and financed through a debt for equity swap. The restructure took effect on 17 September 2011, when the Colorado Group sold assets to Fusion Retail Brands Pty Ltd. By that time the business had been reduced in size by the closure of 139 underperforming stores.
6 The restructure involved the senior lenders advancing new banking facilities to Fusion. Part of the Colorado Group debt was discharged, reducing the group debt by $125 million. Thus, under the restructure the senior lenders have written off almost half of their debt, converting it to equity. As a consequence, they remain the largest unsecured creditor due to the shortfall in the value of security.
7 One of the administrators, Salvatore Algeri, deposed that under the restructure the senior lenders were exposed to a remaining unsecured debt of $106 million. Trade creditors are owed around $19 million, representing a decrease from $28 million at the time of his appointment. Mr Algeri deposed that if the Colorado Group were to be placed in liquidation at the conclusion of the first extension period, it was unlikely that unsecured creditors would receive any material dividend. He said that the extension maximised the opportunity for the business to continue, and thus advantaged creditors. Importantly, it also gave continuity of employment to those who accepted employment with Fusion.
8 All landlords were given notice of this application by letter from the administrators dated 20 January 2012. Only two responded. There was no objection to the orders sought. A letter was received from the solicitors for the Westfield Group, dated 27 January 2012, in which Westfield reserved its rights to make further application for possession of specific premises were leases had expired. There is no doubt that Westfield has such a right. Westfield is the single largest landlord with 66 store premises. The Westfield Group has already taken steps to recover possession of two premises. Following an application to an associate judge[3] the parties negotiated an outcome whereby Westfield will resume possession of another store at Carousel. There is one further store at Burwood that Westfield wants vacated. That has been agreed by Fusion.
9 Should any other landlord, affected by the moratorium under the Act, wish to discontinue negotiations regarding an assignment or new lease, it may make application for leave to take possession under s 440C of the Act.
10 On 23 January 2012, Mr Algeri convened a meeting of creditors at which they were informed of the application to be made on 30 January 2012. Mr Algeri deposed that there was no opposition. Understandably, the representatives of secured lenders supported the application as did a significant landlord, Queensland Investment Corp. No creditor or landlord expressed opposition.
11 The success of the sale to Fusion depends upon successfully negotiating the assignment of existing leases or new leases for the operating stores. Negotiations for the assignments or new leases are continuing and will take some time. The negotiations are complicated by the number of landlords and their differing commercial approaches and practices.
12 I am satisfied that the restructure has created a new opportunity for landlords, suppliers and other creditors of the group to achieve a more satisfactory outcome than by liquidation. Importantly, the restructure has preserved the employment of 1,947 employees who transferred to Fusion following the restructure. Offers of employment had been extended to all 2,313 employees. The continuity of staff, product lines and premises is a feature of the restructure that the administrators and receivers consider will provide Fusion and the unsecured creditors of the Colorado Group with the best opportunity for recovery of some or all of their entitlements.
13 Having regard to the number of assignments and new leases to be negotiated and the complexity of negotiating with so many disparate groups, I am satisfied that the estimates given of the time that is required are reasonable.
14 The administrators and receivers have applied to protect the confidentiality of some of the evidence advanced in support of their application for an extension of time. They do so on the basis that to disclose certain sensitive commercial information would prejudice their ability to successfully conclude negotiations or to conclude negotiations within a reasonable time. I am satisfied that some of the information identified by them as commercially sensitive requires protection so as to facilitate the completion of negotiations as soon as possible. I have made orders protecting that information, subject to further order of the Court.
15 Set out below are the orders made on 30 January 2012:**
[2] Re ABC Learning Centres (No 8) [2009] FCA 915; Lombe Re Australian Discount Retail Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 110.
[3] Re Colorado Group Ltd [2011] VSC 552.