The case for putting non-bank lender Gippsland Secured Investments (GSI) ran for what the plaintiff, The Trust Company (Trust) was hoping would be its final day in Federal Court yesterday. "We are keen to have the case concluded today," said Trust's legal representative, Alexander Street. Nevertheless, all parties will have to wait a day or two longer after Justice Kathleen Farrell reserved judgement for "24 to 48 hours". "There is some urgency attached to this matter; there is also some complexity attached to it," she saidTrust, acting to ensure funds to repay the company's debenture holders, was moving to have the court's back up its call to appoint a receiver to GSI.Street asserted that for the period to 26 August, $23 million worth of term notes and almost $20 million in "at call" notes had fallen due for redemption. On his calculations, with just $26 million cash in the bank, GSI is almost $17 million underwater. He suggested, therefore, that as the only new money being proposed by the "rescue group" of Gippsland businessmen and investors is $2.2 million, the rest of their plan - aimed at converting $5 million of notes into equity and restructuring GSI into two new entities - is irrelevant. Ross Foreman, for GSI, agreed only to the points that the rescue group would bring in $2.2 million in new cash and that the net tangible asset deficiency of $3.8 million discussed last Friday was correct. He then put the argument that "the genesis of the dispute" arose from valuations and provisioning that were all based on opinions - such as the level of completion of developments and the ability of individual borrowers to repay their loans. Some 250 borrowers have all been individually assessed by GSI. The firm is not a high-volume lender, Foreman said, disclosing that GSI approved less than six applications per month over the past five years.He said that by mid-July, 17 of the 19 loans identified as 'Priority 1' had been revalued for the purposes of issuing a replacement prospectus. However, permission was not given for this to proceed, leaving GSI in its current position, with redemptions frozenForeman also argued that the "at call" debenture holders do not have a right to payment until a demand is made, and even then payment is "subject to liquidity" under the terms of the prospectus.Simon White, for the rescue group, recognising that his client was not a party to the proceedings, suggested that Justice Kathleen Farrell accept a submission from him to use the court's powers to call a meeting of note-holders to "glean" their views."This is a significant business entity which has been assisting residents in the [Gippsland] area for over 40 years," he said, adding that the rescue group would not deal with a receiver.Michael Izzo, for ASIC, noted that it was "not strictly necessary" to call GSI's solvency into question as the crucial issue is its ability to repay note-holders - slightly narrower requirements, but with similar types of criteria applying.