11(1)In section 262 (challenge of meeting’s decision), in subsection (2)—E+W+S
(a)for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
“(b)a person who—
(i)was entitled, in accordance with the rules, to vote at the creditors’ meeting, or
(ii)would have been so entitled if he had had notice of it”,
(b)in paragraph (c), for “256(3)(a)” there is substituted “ 256(3), 256A(4) ”.
(2)In subsection (3) of that section—
(a)after “be made” there is inserted “ (a) ”,
(b)at the end there is inserted “or
(b)in the case of a person who was not given notice of the creditors’ meeting, after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he became aware that the meeting had taken place,
but (subject to that) an application made by a person within subsection (2)(b)(ii) on the ground that the arrangement prejudices his interests may be made after the arrangement has ceased to have effect, unless it has come to an end prematurely. ”