A proposed five year extension to running the collapsed Presbyterian Mutual Society in administration has been cut to 12 months.
Lawyers for the administrator Arthur Boyd amended his plans amid concerns that some elderly savers may not live long enough to enjoy their investments if such a long-term extension was granted.
It was also stressed at the High Court that Mr Boyd was anxious to avoid incurring any needless expenses or delays.
A judge who agreed to the new proposals was told the administrator still reserved the right to seek a further extension in future if it was believed to be in creditors interests.
Nearly 10,000 Presbyterians across Northern Ireland lost access to their savings when the society went into administration more than a year ago following a run on its funds.
The High Court has already ruled that shareholders with less than £20,000 in the PMS cannot receive interim payments from a £20m pot of assets realised.
Mr Justice Deeny's decision last month was taken on the basis that they cannot be classed as creditors.
Following his ruling lawyers for administrator Arthur Boyd returned to court to resolve further issues around its future.
Determinations were being sought on how to set off borrowings against what savers had in the PMS, and on the establishment of a committee to represent the interests of those with savings.
Mr Boyd had originally applied for permission to continue running its affairs up to 2015 if no buyer can be found.
But lawyers for a charitable trust of those who had lent money to the Society strenuously resisted such a lengthy extension.
Mark Horner QC argued that a five-year continuation was inconsistent with the case made out at the beginning.
It was further contended that the political will to intervene may not arise while the stricken mutual remains in the limbo of administration.
Responding to those submissions, Stephen Shaw QC, for Mr Boyd, told the court his client still considered the five year extension sustainable.
"But to justify it in light of the observations yesterday will take both time and money," he accepted.
"The suggestion the administrator now puts forward is that a 12-month period from 16 May 2010 would, we hope, be acceptable both to the Court and to those represented by Mr Horner on the understanding that if within that 12 months period there was a need for an extension, and that may arise, we would come back to court and ask for an extension.
"That period of 12 months might be such that it calms some of the anxieties raised by Mr Horner yesterday.
"We are anxious not to incur needless expenses and not to incur needless delay."
After being briefed on the developments, Mr Justice Deeny stated: "I think that seems a very sensible proposition. I'm happy to agree to that."
© UTV News