Administrators of a brewery and restaurant have succeeded in getting a court-ordered time extension after receiving 16 offers to buy the Rockingham business.
Administrators of a brewery and restaurant have succeeded in getting a court-ordered time extension after receiving 16 offers to buy the Rockingham business.
Sound Brewing Co, registered as Bragu Pty Ltd, last month appointed joint administrators Greg Prout and Jimmy Trpcevski from WA Insolvency Solutions due to "financial difficulties".
Upon their appointment the administrators said the brewery would continue to trade while they fielded expressions of interests to sell the business, which is located in the Rockingham Centre shopping complex.
A Supreme Court of Western Australia judgment delivered today revealed the administrators last week sought a time extension of three months for the second meeting of creditors, accompanied with a certificate of urgency.
In his judgment, Justice Michael Lundberg granted Bragu administrators a time extension, but for a period of 45 days instead of the three months requested.
“The extension which is sought is for three months, which is a relatively lengthy period for what appears to be a modest administration of a single site company,” Justice Lundberg said.
“It appears that some 16 expressions of interest have been received to purchase the business operations and the administrators have indicated they need additional time to gather in all offers, evaluate those offers, and negotiate with interested parties.
“The due diligence process, I am told from the bar table, is not yet complete and site attendances have not yet been undertaken.”
Justice Lundberg found the administrators’ evidence were limited and did not warrant a three-month extension.
“I have been provided with a statement of the current financial position of the company,” he said in his judgment.
“Certain information in that statement has been redacted on the basis that the material is commercially sensitive whilst the sale process is under way.
“The evidence adduced by the administrators on the current application provides the court with very limited information about the administration to date, and other than conclusionary statements, does not adequately explain in the necessary detail why a further three months is required to hold the second creditors' meeting.”
According to the judgment, the first creditors meeting was held on September 18, but the administrators’ court material was silent to the contents of the meeting.
The court-ordered extension to the convening period will be until November 20.
