Amber Bridging Limited (In Administration) & Anor v Market Financial Solutions Limited

Amber and Zircon said they stood as borrowers under securitisation structures and had appointed MFS as servicer under servicing agreements and related documents. Their position was that MFS had to collect income on mortgage loans made to underlying customers and ensure that money was promptly deposited into nominated bank accounts for Amber or Zircon, as applicable.

According to the applicants, that had not been happening. They said that since at least December 2025 most of the income on the mortgage loans had not been paid into the nominated accounts as required. They also said MFS had not provided the information they had requested, despite contractual obligations relating to servicing activities and the underlying portfolio.

The applicants' evidence went further. It raised concerns about whether mortgage loans that ought to have been held for Amber or Zircon had been improperly dissipated. Mr Appell's evidence also referred to alleged double pledging of assets in the mortgage portfolio serviced by MFS. The judge did not finally determine those allegations at this hearing. They formed part of the urgent background said to justify immediate independent control and investigation.

The judgment also records that Barclays was said to be owed about £600 million and that MFS's bank accounts at Barclays were frozen. The court noted evidence that accumulated cash was likely to be subject to security. Those points fed into the insolvency and urgency analysis.

The procedural history was unusual. On 19 February 2026, Mr Raja filed MFS's own application to appoint Stephen Katz of BTG Begbies Traynor and Nimish Patel of Coots & Boots as joint administrators. That application was withdrawn on 23 February. On 24 February, Amber and Zircon issued their own creditor application seeking the appointment of Simon Appell, Benjamin Browne and Alastair Beveridge of AlixPartners.

The court heard the matter urgently on 25 February. Other creditors had written to the court. Mukesh Patel and a group of unsecured creditors opposed the appointment of AlixPartners and asked for a short adjournment so they could file more evidence about the identity of the administrators.

Thirdly, should the hearing be adjourned? The unsecured creditor group wanted more time to put in evidence about who should be appointed. The court had to balance fairness, urgency, cost and whether delay would realistically change the outcome.

Fourthly, if an administration order was made, which insolvency practitioners should be appointed? The court reviewed the usual importance of majority creditor wishes, but also looked at independence, prior relationships, resources, progress already made in understanding the business and whether the appointment would support the proper operation of the administration.

On insolvency, the court found the statutory condition was satisfied. The judgment notes that MFS had itself filed an administration application on the basis that it was insolvent. It also notes that the proposed administrators in the withdrawn process sought appointment on the same basis, that MFS's bank accounts were frozen, and that MFS did not appear to argue it was solvent.

The judge referred to the latest audited accounts for the year ending 31 December 2024, which showed net assets before any downward adjustments. Mr Appell's evidence was that, taking the contingent claims into account, MFS was balance sheet insolvent. The court accepted that paragraph 11(a) of Schedule B1 was met.

On the purpose of administration, the court accepted that there was a real prospect that one or more statutory objectives could be achieved. The proposed administrators had signed certificates saying that the purpose of administration was likely to be achieved.

The judge accepted that in hostile circumstances, where information had not been forthcoming, the administrators might not immediately know whether the best route would be rescue, a better result for creditors than winding up, or realisation for secured or preferential creditors.

The judgment gives a practical example. It might be possible to allow a run-off of servicing activities to obtain a better result for creditors than an immediate winding up, but the administrators could not know that until they had control and could investigate properly.

On the choice of administrators, the court treated majority creditor support as an important starting point. On a summary basis, the judge concluded that the majority of creditors supported the appointment of AlixPartners. The court also considered counterbalancing factors. It recognised that the rival proposed appointees had already spent time understanding the wider structure, but it also accepted that the AlixPartners team had already spent time and cost understanding the applicants and the relevant structures.

The judge discounted an allegation about a prior relationship because it was denied and could not be resolved on the papers. Even so, the court placed weight on the fact that the AlixPartners appointees had not had any prior relationship with MFS and would not be funded by Mr Raja. It also relied on the immediate need to protect assets that might be available for creditors.

The court also weighed the practical downsides of delay. Time would be lost to those interested in the outcome of the administration. More court time would be taken. Further costs would be incurred. In an urgent insolvency setting, especially where there are concerns about information access and asset protection, those factors can be decisive.

For a business owner, the lesson is simple. If you want to influence an urgent insolvency appointment, you need to move early and be ready with evidence. A request for more time is less likely to succeed if the court thinks the position is already urgent and the extra evidence is unlikely to alter the outcome.

The case also shows that the identity of an administrator can matter commercially. The court did not simply rubber-stamp the first proposed appointee. It looked at creditor support, independence, prior relationships, resources and funding. If your business is a creditor in a distressed situation, it helps to explain not only the size of your claim but also why your preferred office-holder is suitable for the job.

Directors and founders should also take note. Once insolvency risk becomes serious, the court's focus shifts to the interests of creditors as a whole. Questions about governance, transparency, information access and the appearance of independence can become central very quickly.

The court also recognised practical factors. Prior work done by a proposed appointee can matter because it saves time and cost. Resources can matter too, especially where the company sits in a complex international structure. In some cases a larger firm may be better placed to handle the scale of the administration and investigation.

In this case, the court exercised its discretion in favour of AlixPartners because of the applicants' serious concerns over management, majority creditor support, the absence of any prior relationship with MFS, the fact the proposed administrators would not be funded by Mr Raja, and the immediate need to protect assets that might be available for creditors.