Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court held that contracts for the sale of land owned by the claimant companies were validly made under section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), despite arguments that the director’s signature placement meant execution had to comply with CA 2006, s 44. The court rejected an over-formalistic approach: the contracts objectively showed that the director signed on the companies’ behalf and intended to bind them. However, the receivers’ appointment was invalid because, although the appointment letter contained an obvious error, there was no single obvious correction capable of curing it under Chartbrook. The decision clarifies company contract execution and underscores the need for exact drafting when appointing receivers, as construction cannot rescue an instrument where competing corrections are reasonably possible. Produced in partnership with Bridget Williamson of Enterprise Chambers.