The role of an administrator is to capture all the assets within his control, including escrow accounts if there are funds there. He then totals up the liabilities and assesses how much of them can be paid. Implicit in his statement that only 27p in the £ can be paid out is a recognition of the total debt. His statement does not reduce the debt but says how much of it he is able to pay.
If the creditor is able to pursue the balance of the debt through means not within the control of the administrator, such as a guarantor, then surely he is free to do so: the administrator surely cannot offset any debt using money not in his control. Otherwise what is the point of having a guarantor: he is there after all to make good any deficiencies in the debtor's payment.
The FL set a condition of the GS that £590,000 should be paid. This figure fell out of administration process and is part of the FL's attempt to maintain the privileged rights of football creditors.
So, why should the money obtained from a guarantor be offset against this amount? And as escrow funds should have been already considered by the administrator why should this be considered either?
I can only surmise that although the full £590,000 is confirmed to be in an escrow account SISU still exercise some control over it. The full amount should be released to ACL.
