Legal Dispute Involving Maker&Son’s Liquidator, FRP Advisory, and Inc & Co Unfolds after the British Furniture Maker’s Administration in 2022. Inc & Co acquired Maker&Son’s intellectual property and has been seeking to rebuild the company, with customers’ orders totalling over £3,000,000 being honoured by the owners.
The handling of the case by FRP Advisory has been criticised by a group of creditors, who accuse the liquidator of failing to come to a settlement with Inc & Co in relation to the remaining assets of the insolvency estate. Additionally, FRP Advisory has been accused by creditors of running a media campaign to discredit Inc&Co, causing delays in customer orders and refunds. The liquidator’s strategy of making last-minute court applications have prevented former directors from properly defending their actions, resulting in unfair criticism by a judge.
One of the most significant impacts of FRP Advisory’s conduct is the delay they are causing in enabling customer orders and refunds by refusing to settle the matter with the owners. As a result of the liquidation process, Maker & Son’s customers have been left without their orders or refunds for cancelled orders. This delay has caused great frustration and inconvenience for customers, who have had little recourse to receive the goods or refunds owed to them. Customers say that the Liquidators are holding sofas customers have paid for, whilst the owners are trying to secure their release, with Liquidators refusing to do so.
Creditors have accused FRP Advisory’s Liquidators of failing to come to a settlement with Inc&Co in relation to the assets of the insolvency estate. The creditor group claims Inc&Co has made substantial and viable offers that would benefit creditors and customers; however, the liquidators refuse to engage. One creditor has now claimed that liquidator Jones has stated he has standing instructions to refuse any settlements. The creditor group also accuses the Liquidators of trying to deplete the insolvent estate funds on their fees and that of its solicitors than trying to keep funds in the estate for a return to creditors.
The liquidator has a responsibility to ensure that the insolvent company’s assets are maximised, but the lack of transparency or willingness to work with the Maker&Son Owners has led to confusion and uncertainty among creditors. The lack of transparency has also resulted in a lack of trust in the liquidation process, which could negatively impact the insolvency profession as a whole.
Moreover, the allegations that FRP Advisory engaged in a media campaign to discredit Inc&Co are highly unprofessional and unethical. This behaviour undermines the principles of impartiality and independence that are essential to the insolvency profession. The liquidator must act in the best interests of creditors, but the actions of FRP Advisory suggest that this duty was compromised in the Maker&Son case.
In addition to the impact on customers and creditors, the former directors of Maker&Son have been unfairly criticised by the judge due to FRP Advisory’s actions. The liquidator’s last-minute court applications prevented the former directors from properly defending themselves, resulting in negative judgments being made against them. This violates the principles of natural justice, which require all parties to be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves in court.
The impact of these negative judgments on the former directors is significant, as it can harm their reputations and future career prospects. The liquidator has a duty to act impartially and with integrity, but the actions of FRP Advisory in the Maker&Son case suggest that these principles have been compromised.
Inc&Co is a firm that specialises in saving and investing in distressed companies when directors have no other alternatives.
Creditors have confirmed and commented that at all times, the team at Inc&Co have tried to do what is right for creditors and customers, to be then thwarted by the Liquidator’s campaign.
The lack of transparency and the failure to come to a settlement with Inc&Co is also concerning. The liquidator has a responsibility to ensure that the maximum value of an insolvent company’s assets is realised, but the lack of transparency has resulted in confusion and uncertainty among creditors. The lack of transparency has also resulted in a lack of trust in the liquidation process, which can have negative consequences for the insolvency profession as a whole.
Furthermore, the campaign of last-minute court applications by FRP Advisory has prevented the former directors from properly defending themselves, leading to unfair criticism by the judge. All parties involved in a legal proceeding must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, and the liquidator must act impartially and with integrity. The actions of FRP Advisory in the Maker&Son case suggest that these principles have been compromised, which is concerning for the insolvency profession as a whole.
The Maker&Son case emphasises the need for greater transparency, communication, and impartiality in the liquidation process. The liquidator must act in the best interests of all parties involved and maintain independence and impartiality throughout the process.
It is understood that a request was made to the liquidators to call a creditors meeting to replace FRP as a liquidator. However, they refused to do so.
Inc&Co and FRP were contacted for comment.
The post FRP Advisory Faces Criticism from Creditors over Maker&Son Liquidation Process and Accusations of Media Smear Campaign against Inc&Co first appeared on BusinessMole.
