Hamish Champ: An issue of trust

A number of people have asked me with varying degrees of incredulity quite how it is that the Dusanj brothers - Sudarghara and Ajmail - can buy back Cains Beer Company.

To some, many even, it seems illogical that ownership and control of a company can be (re)placed in the hands of those who ran it into the ground in the first place.

I asked Cains' administrators, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), about this point a few weeks ago.

Looking at how the rules work, if a company's former management team can offer evidence that satisfies the administrators' criteria for taking a business forward - and if they can cough up enough dosh - then it's theirs. Whether a new buyer was part of the old management team appears not to count for anything.

It's perfectly legal, as many things that feel like they shouldn't be are. Things called 'pre-pack administrations', where a company is dumped into administration and the best bits bought back literally moments later by a 'new' company (but with the same old faces in it) are as old as the hills.

Do we need a change in the administration rules? Should those who ran a business into administration be blocked from buying it back on the cheap, while those owed money get virtually nothing? Maybe, although I'm sure someone will come up with a logical-sounding rationale for the way these things are done and why yet more regulation would be a burden to good, honest business practice. Indeed.

Meanwhile the circumstances of how Cains got itself into such an almighty pickle - debts of around £35m and an unpaid tax bill of £13m - have not been spelled out. There are those who have suggested the Dusanj's enthusiasm for the brewing and pub game got the better of their financial judgment.

So as they prepare to pick up how they left off in brewing and running pubs, how will the industry react? After all, they - or rather Cains Beer Company - owed a lot of money to people. It's also fair to suggest such people won't see much of it.

In an ironic twist it'll be us the taxpayer who'll be picking up part of the tab for its latest failure. Thanks to a change in the law last year the tax authorities are at the end of the queue when it comes to getting money from a failed business, even if, as in Cains' case, it was a hefty tax demand that finally pushed the brewer from the edge of the precipice into the abyss itself.

I've no doubt the Dusanjs are proud of the part they played in restoring Cains' fortunes - and saving dozens of jobs - when they bought it several years ago.

But successful business relationships are based on trust. If they want to continue to be seen as the 'good guys' going forward then Sudaghara and Ajmail must accept that they have a number of bridges to rebuild, both in Liverpool and the wider pub and brewing industries.