CR-2019-MAN-001065 - In the matter of Fundingsecure Ltd

IMO there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of administration & the role of the IP. The administrator are responsible to the company & its creditors. Their objective, as agreed by the CM & CC in the proposals, is to achieve a better result for creditors than if the company were wound up. Where there is uncertainty regarding how they should proceed or interpretation of facts/documents they will seek legal advice, as they have done in both the fee issue & the trust structure, if that fails to resolve the issue, they will seek directions from the court on how to proceed, as they have and would have with the trust structure if they hadnt come to an agreement with the creditors. They couldnt just decide that the 5% wouldnt be charged against legal advice & the interests of the creditors, that would be in breach of their duties, so they had to go to court. AFAICS the judge has not said that their approach was unreasonable or unlawful merely that on the balance of evidence/arguments made he 'favoured' the interpretation of the investors. The costs are costs of the administration and payable from the company estate not by investors. 

IMO there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of administration & the role of the IP. The administrator are responsible to the company & its creditors. Their objective, as agreed by the CM & CC in the proposals, is to achieve a better result for creditors than if the company were wound up. Where there is uncertainty regarding how they should proceed or interpretation of facts/documents they will seek legal advice, as they have done in both the fee issue & the trust structure, if that fails to resolve the issue, they will seek directions from the court on how to proceed, as they have and would have with the trust structure if they hadnt come to an agreement with the creditors. They couldnt just decide that the 5% wouldnt be charged against legal advice & the interests of the creditors, that would be in breach of their duties, so they had to go to court. AFAICS the judge has not said that their approach was unreasonable or unlawful merely that on the balance of evidence/arguments made he 'favoured' the interpretation of the investors. The costs are costs of the administration and payable from the company estate not by investors. 

It is surely self understanding that their first responsibility by definition is to themselves? That is the case with all living and non-living entities except suicidal ones.

I therefore think it is worth considering that priority order is wrong. I'm sure you could point me at plenty of legal texts that describe the priorities as you have but in doing so it is surely implicit that the administrator is non-suicidal and therefore its first priority is to itself.