Any involvement RRL had should have come to an end with the settlement of the derivative claim brought by SDI along with the settlement of all the original dispute.
RRL’s last accounts in 2018 confirm that the company ceased trading altogether on 20th June 2017. A dividend of about £600k was paid out that financial year, and subsequent to the financial year end but before the lodging of the accounts, a further dividend of over £1m was paid out. The net profit for that last accounting period was about £1m, so it looks like all of the cash was paid out of the company long ago. Again, I would think that happened at the point of the settlement of the various claims in
Generally you would only bother to keep a dormant company alive if you have a claim against it, it is sitting owning some property, or you want to use it to make a claim.
I don’t think there’s a claim against it since it looks like the money has been paid out. There shouldn’t be any claims to be made by the company either since the settlement that resulted in it ceasing trading was in full and final settlement of all claims.
The application was under s1000(3) which means the company registrar asked whether the company was operational and either didn’t get replies or got a reply to the effect it wasn’t operating. (I think I’d previously misread that as s1003, which would be the company itself applying for strike off - but that isn’t the case.)
It’s not very clear what’s going on.
From the 2017 accounts it had been intended to keep the company alive but dormant rather than strike it off, so it may be this is just tidying up the error of allowing it to get this far with the registrar?
Is RRL technically still the tenant in the lease of the store? If they are then the lease would fall if they were struck off - so it could maybe just to keep things correct re that?