CR-2018-009110 - [2025] EWHC 2115 (Ch)

The Applicants case, in summary, is that when the Administrators were informed that BAT intended to seek their removal, their conduct of the Administration became primarily motivated by a desire to remain in office and to be paid. This involved seeking to challenge BAT and BTI’s status as creditors, since for as long as BAT and BTI remained members of the Creditors Committee there was no prospect of the Administrators having their fees (which they knew that the Applicants regarded as excessive) approved by the Creditors Committee. They also say that attempts were also made to manufacture new creditors (most notably HMRC), to threaten BAT and BTI with adverse publicity if they persevered, and to obstruct the conduct of the potential s.213 action against the Sequana Directors.

The principal support for these allegations, beyond the actual conduct of the Administrators, is a series of extraordinary e-mails sent by Mr O’Connell on the 28 March and the 9th, 11th and 13th April 2025. I note that Mr O’Connell had been on sick leave in the latter part of 2024, and it is entirely possible that he was not fully recovered when he penned these missives. However, I can entirely understand the disquiet which they caused.

I shall consider in turn first the Administrators’ conduct and then the content of the e-mails.