Legal News

Administrators’ appointments—void or defective? (Re Zoom UK Distribution v Rubra)

Published on: 12 April 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Administrators’ appointments—void or defective? (Re Zoom UK Distribution v Rubra)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was another in the long line of cases dealing with out of court appointments of administrators and the consequences of a failure to comply with the requirements of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). It required the court to determine whether the directors’ failure to give notice to a qualifying floating charge holder as required by IA 1986, Sch B1, para 26(1)(b) rendered the administrators’ appointment defective (and so capable of cure) or void. The court adopted the reasoning of Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Jones in Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd and concluded that a breach of IA 1986, Sch B1, para 26(1)(b) renders the administrators’ appointment defective only. Written by Rachael Earle, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents