Talk:Administration (law)/Archives/2013

Untitled

In light of recent economic events, this subject has grown in importance - not to say that it was ever /un/important - and I do not understand why it has been assessed as being of low importance. It is not merely business-related either; it has obvious legal and political implications.

Moreover, the language is highly technical. I'm not in a position to mend it, but would venture that it compares poorly with the US Chapter 11 article from a general reader's POV. Thanx for reading xx Pufferfyshe (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin

This article was orignally part of a general article "Administration", most of which related to Business Administration. For the history of editors whose contributions formed this article, please see the history page for Administration (business). The principal contributing editor was user:Legis. --Concrete Cowboy 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Material that follows was in original talk and repasted here. --Concrete Cowboy 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Administration of an insolvent business

In this article, we have a section on the administration of an insolvent business. Is this the same thing as administrative receivership, for which there is another article? If so, should the two articles be linked? Or is there a subtle difference? DWaterson 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'll merge them. --Concrete Cowboy 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not the same things. They are in fact completely different. An administrative receiver is an officer appointed by the holder of a floating charge (out of court) over all of the assets and undertaking of a company, and their job is to sell of all or part of the assets of the business (or the whole business as a going concern) to satisfy the claims of a secured creditor. An administrator is appointed by an order of the court where a business is on the verge of failing to grant protection from creditors to try and save the company by giving it breathing space. It is very similar to the U.S. chapter 11. They are polar opposites. I will do a quick fix the article, but administration of a failing company is a complex topic, and probably deserves its own article. Legis 08:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Legis - there is an article for administration order which is a stub needing a lot more input. Given your excellent reworking here and on administrative receivership, you may want to have a look at it. Burbidget 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Contradiction

I placed a {{contradict}} tag. The United Kingdom section says that the Enterprise Act 2002 arrangements replace receivership, then goes on to talk about the appointment of an administrative receiver. So, which does it replace: Receiver (legal), Receivership or Administrative receivership? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

As I understand it, the article stub at Administration Order is about a UK procedure to implement Administration (insolvency).

If my understanding is correct, I think it will be helpful to readers if we include the text of the stub as a sub-section of the Administration (insolvency) article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

An administration order, in terms of county court personal debt, is nothing to do with company administration. johnnybriggs (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is good to know. Could you update the Administration Order article with this information? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate rubbish

This article is so poorly written, parts of it make no sense.86.145.1.49 (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So what does it mean?

It's a bit hard to gather from the article just what it actually means for a company to go into administration. kestasjk (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)