Office holders and others with an interest in the seemingly endless run of cases about the invalidity of office holders’ appointments may wish to review the decision of Norris J, handed down on 21 December 2011 in the case of Virtualpurple Professional Services ltd [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch)
The most important aspect of this judgment would appear to be the finding that, at least where directors are otherwise in a position to effect an immediate administration appointment (there being no qualifying floating charge holder to give notice to), it is NOT in fact necessary to give notice of the appointment to the company itself. In order to apply this authority more generally it is necessary to look at the facts carefully, but at first blush this conclusion does appear to reach the opposite conclusion to that drawn (albeit on an obiter and therefore non-binding footing) by the Chancellor in his controversial judgment (from para 53) in the case of Minmar (929) Ltd handed down in April 2011.
As we head into the New Year, the debates about the validity of administration appointments and the extent to which they may be retrospectively validated will doubtless continue to rage but this decision hopefully marks the beginning of some of the Minmar questions being laid to rest by the courts. It is likely that 2012 will see a good many administration appointments and for the insolvency profession to perform its task to the best of its ability for the benefit of the creditors, certainly is required. For now, though, caution remains the order of the day whilst office holders’ attention perhaps begins to shift towards the debate over whether the government will get its own way in rationalising the list of accredited regulators for insolvency practitioners.
For more information on administration appointments please contact our lead insolvency partner Mike Pavitt at mike.pavitt@parissmith.co.uk
Tags: administration appointments, administrators' appointments, Minmar (929) Ltd, office holders, Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd