Sir Philip Green: BHS Collapse, £571m Pension Deficit, Tax Controversy, Arcadia Failure and Harassment Allegations

For years, Sir Philip Green was portrayed as the ultimate British retail entrepreneur.

He controlled Topshop, Topman, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Miss Selfridge, Wallis and Evans. Politicians courted him. Celebrities attended his parties. He received a knighthood for services to retail and became known as the "King of the High Street."

Then came BHS.

Green sold the historic department-store chain for £1 to a consortium led by former bankrupt Dominic Chappell. Just thirteen months later BHS collapsed, threatening 11,000 jobs and leaving pension liabilities that were calculated at approximately £571 million on the statutory buyout basis.

A joint parliamentary investigation delivered one of the most savage verdicts ever issued against a major British businessman.

MPs accused Green of extracting hundreds of millions of pounds from BHS, failing to invest sufficiently in the business, resisting efforts to secure its pension fund, and selling the company to a buyer he should have known was manifestly unsuitable.

Parliament called the affair:

"THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM."

Green ultimately paid £363 million to settle the pension dispute.

But BHS was only the beginning of his reputational collapse.

Arcadia itself later entered administration, with around 13,000 jobs at risk and another major pension deficit.

Green faced years of criticism over enormous dividends paid through family-controlled offshore structures.

Then came allegations of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and racist abuse, non-disclosure agreements and large confidential settlements—allegations Green has strongly denied and which were not established against him by a criminal conviction.

By the end, one of Britain's most celebrated retail careers had become a case study in corporate extraction, pension risk, offshore wealth, weak governance and the dangers of allowing a dominant owner almost unlimited control over a major business empire.

---

Who Is Sir Philip Green?

Philip Green became one of Britain's richest and most famous retailers by acquiring struggling businesses, cutting costs and extracting value from them.

His defining acquisitions included:

• BHS;
• Arcadia Group;
• Topshop;
• Topman;
• Dorothy Perkins;
• Burton;
• Miss Selfridge;
• Wallis;
• Evans.

He acquired BHS in 2000 for approximately:

£200 MILLION.

Six years later, he received a knighthood for services to retail.

At the height of his reputation, Green seemed to personify aggressive entrepreneurial capitalism.

But Parliament's later reconstruction of what happened inside BHS would produce a profoundly different interpretation of his business model.

---

BHS: £200 Million In, £1 Out

Green bought BHS in May 2000.

In March 2015, the Green family's Taveta structure sold the business to Retail Acquisitions Limited for:

£1.

The buyer was led by Dominic Chappell, a former bankrupt with no meaningful experience of running a major department-store group.

Thirteen months later BHS entered administration.

The parliamentary inquiry concluded that Green rushed through the disposal to a buyer he was well aware was unsuitable.

Parliament's motion subsequently stated that selling BHS for £1 was "clearly not in the interests" of BHS employees and pensioners.

---

Parliament Said Green "Called All the Main Shots"

The BHS inquiry examined advisers, directors, pension trustees, the purchaser and Green himself.

After taking thousands of pages of evidence, MPs concluded that despite the complicated corporate structure, the central authority was obvious.

Sir Philip Green "called all the main shots."

The committees described Taveta as effectively a personal fiefdom controlled by one dominant individual.

That finding is essential because it undermined any attempt to blame the collapse entirely on boards, advisers or the eventual purchaser.

Parliament saw Green as the central decision-maker.

---

£423 Million of BHS Dividends

The scale of money extracted from BHS became one of the most damaging elements of the inquiry.

Parliament found that BHS Group paid:

£423 MILLION

in dividends between 2002 and 2004.

The Green family received approximately:

£307 MILLION

of those dividends.

The committees noted that BHS's dividends were far larger relative to profits than those of key competitors.

BHS Ltd itself paid £414 million in dividends during those three years despite total after-tax profits of only £208 million.

In other words, dividends were roughly double cumulative after-tax profit over the period.

---

Parliament Said Those Payments Weakened BHS

The committees' conclusion was brutally straightforward.

The payments removed value from the business that could otherwise have been used for:

• investment;
• modernisation;
• pension contributions;
• store improvements;
• or strengthening the company's balance sheet.

By 2014, MPs said BHS was essentially on "life-support."

The company's net assets had fallen from roughly £296 million in 2001 to negative £256 million in 2014.

Parliament said the high early dividends followed by years of losses had left BHS far weaker than when Green acquired it.

---

The £1.3 Billion Arcadia Dividend

BHS was not the largest Green-family dividend controversy.

In 2005, Taveta Investments—the parent of Arcadia—paid a record dividend of approximately:

£1.3 BILLION.

Parliament described it as the largest corporate payday of its kind in British business history.

The parliamentary report found that a major corporate restructuring was used to facilitate the distribution and that it was effectively funded through approximately £1 billion of additional borrowing.

The dividend substantially enriched the Green family.

The transaction became one of the defining symbols of the Green business empire:

enormous sums moving out to private family interests while operating companies later faced severe financial stress.

---

The Offshore Structure and Tax Controversy

Much of the Green family wealth was legally structured around companies and family interests outside mainland Britain.

Lady Tina Green, Green's wife, was resident in Monaco and was the ultimate beneficial owner of important family entities.

Parliament examined one particularly controversial BHS arrangement involving Carmen Properties, a Jersey-registered company ultimately owned by Lady Green.

BHS sold ten stores to Carmen for:

£106 MILLION

and then leased them back.

Over the lifetime of the arrangement, BHS paid approximately:

£153 MILLION IN RENT

to Carmen.

Parliament explicitly noted that the arrangement reduced BHS profits taxable in Britain and created tax benefits for the Green family because of the offshore ownership structure.

This should be described accurately.

There was no finding here of illegal tax evasion by Green.

The controversy concerned aggressive, lawful tax planning and the optics of extracting wealth offshore from British retail businesses employing thousands of UK workers.

---

Parliament Used the Word "Plunder"

The language in the official parliamentary report was extraordinary.

The committees described:

"the systematic plunder of BHS"

and said employees and pensioners were ultimately the losers.

They accused Green of extracting hundreds of millions of pounds while investing too little in the company.

Parliament said significantly more money left BHS than was invested into it during the Green family's tenure.

This is not the language of a hostile blogger.

It is the conclusion of two committees of the British House of Commons.

---

BHS Was Not Modernised Enough

Green defended his investment record.

He told MPs that approximately £600 million had been invested in BHS after the early dividend years.

Parliament nevertheless concluded that investment had been inadequate or ineffective.

BHS's tangible fixed assets fell from:

£430 million in 2000

to

£183 million in 2014.

The committees also found that turnover remained largely flat for much of Green's ownership before declining.

Green had been highly effective at cost cutting.

What he did not do successfully was reinvent the department-store business for the changing retail market.

---

The Pension Fund Went From Surplus to Crisis

When Green acquired BHS, its pension arrangements were effectively in surplus.

The parliamentary report showed the schemes deteriorating over time and entering deficit in 2006.

By the point of the 2015 sale, the schemes' assets were nearly:

£350 MILLION

below their liabilities on one funding measure.

On the more expensive statutory Section 75 buyout basis—the cost of purchasing insurance to secure promised benefits—the deficit was estimated at:

£571 MILLION.

This distinction matters because the frequently quoted £571 million figure is not identical to the ordinary accounting deficit.

But either way, the pension deterioration was enormous.

---

MPs Said Green Knew the Pension Problem Was Growing

The parliamentary committees concluded that Green had a responsibility to understand the increasing pension deficit and was aware of it.

They also said BHS repeatedly resisted requests from pension trustees for greater contributions.

Parliament further criticised Green's resistance to requests from the Pensions Regulator concerning:

• historical dividends;
• management charges;
• sale-and-leaseback deals;
• intercompany loans;
• and the use of BHS assets.

The committees concluded that Green had failed to resolve the pension problem before disposing of the business.

---

Selling BHS for £1 Did Not Make the Pension Problem Disappear

Green's sale transferred ownership of BHS.

It did not make the pension liabilities politically disappear.

The Pensions Regulator opened an anti-avoidance investigation immediately after the 2015 transaction.

After BHS collapsed, pressure intensified dramatically.

Parliament demanded that Green personally contribute to resolving the deficit.

MPs even voted to call for his knighthood to be removed unless the issue was addressed.

---

£363 Million: Green Eventually Paid

In February 2017, after regulatory pressure and months of political outrage, Green reached a settlement with the Pensions Regulator.

He agreed to provide:

£363 MILLION

to support a new BHS pension arrangement.

The regulator then discontinued enforcement action against Green and relevant Taveta entities.

The settlement materially improved outcomes for former BHS pension members compared with simply entering the Pension Protection Fund.

This is an important mitigating fact.

Green eventually put an enormous amount of money into resolving the issue.

But it occurred only after BHS had collapsed, Parliament had investigated him and the regulator had initiated enforcement action.

---

Even Parliament Questioned the Pension Settlement

The controversy did not entirely vanish.

The Work and Pensions Committee found that depending on member choices, Green could potentially receive a refund of approximately:

£15 MILLION

from the £363 million settlement.

That became another peculiar postscript to an already extraordinary affair.

---

MPs Wanted His Knighthood Removed

The reputational consequences of BHS reached all the way to Green's knighthood.

The House of Commons passed a motion stating that his actions raised the question of whether he should continue to hold the honour and called on the Honours Forfeiture Committee to recommend cancellation.

This was an extraordinary rebuke.

Green had been knighted in 2006 specifically for services to the retail industry.

Ten years later, Parliament was effectively arguing that his retail conduct was so damaging that the honour itself had become questionable.

The knighthood was not ultimately removed.

---

The Insolvency Service Did Not Disqualify Green

One important qualification should not be omitted.

After investigating BHS's directors, the Insolvency Service announced in 2018 that it did not intend to bring director-disqualification proceedings against Sir Philip Green.

It did pursue proceedings against Dominic Chappell and other former BHS directors.

That matters.

The parliamentary condemnation was extraordinarily severe, but Green was not subsequently disqualified from serving as a company director on the basis of the BHS investigation.

---

Arcadia: The Empire Collapses Too

Four years after BHS went under, Green's wider retail empire followed.

On 30 November 2020, Arcadia Group entered administration.

The collapse placed approximately:

13,000 JOBS

at risk.

Arcadia controlled many of Britain's best-known high-street brands:

• Topshop;
• Topman;
• Burton;
• Dorothy Perkins;
• Miss Selfridge;
• Wallis;
• Evans.

The failure effectively ended Green's reign over British high-street fashion.

---

Arcadia Had Failed to Keep Up With Online Retail

Covid-19 accelerated the crisis.

But Arcadia was already in serious trouble.

Retail commentators said brands such as Topshop had failed to keep pace with:

• ASOS;
• Boohoo;
• fast-fashion competitors;
• e-commerce;
• social-media marketing;
• and changing consumer behaviour.

The Guardian reported years of underinvestment and failure to adapt effectively to online retail before the pandemic finally pushed the company into administration.

Green had once built his reputation on buying tired retailers and reviving them.

By the end, critics argued that his own empire had become exactly the type of outdated retail operation he once claimed to know how to fix.

---

Another Huge Pension Problem

When Arcadia collapsed, another pension crisis followed.

Early estimates placed the deficit at up to approximately £350 million.

Later documents indicated that the Arcadia pension deficit could be approximately:

£510 MILLION.

The Green family had already committed substantial pension support.

The Pensions Regulator's 2019 agreement secured:

• £185 million of security over group assets;
• another £25 million of security;
• and £100 million in family cash contributions.

Those contributions materially strengthened the pension scheme.

But the sight of another Green retail empire entering administration with a large pension shortfall inevitably revived memories of BHS.

---

£1.3 Billion Out—Then Another Pension Deficit

The historical optics were brutal.

Years earlier, the Green family had received the £1.3 billion Arcadia dividend.

By 2020, Arcadia employees were facing uncertainty about both jobs and pensions.

The family had also received hundreds of millions in rents and interest payments over the years, according to contemporary reporting.

Again, these payments were not automatically unlawful.

But public anger focused on a larger ethical question:

Why were enormous sums available for private extraction during the good years while pension schemes became a crisis when the companies failed?

That question followed Green from BHS directly into Arcadia.

---

Then Came the Workplace Allegations

Green's reputation deteriorated further in 2018.

The Daily Telegraph had investigated allegations involving a powerful businessman but was prevented temporarily from identifying him because of a court injunction.

On 25 October 2018, Labour peer Lord Peter Hain used parliamentary privilege to name the businessman as:

SIR PHILIP GREEN.

Hain told the House of Lords that he had been contacted about allegations involving sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying, as well as settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses.

Green strongly denied unlawful behaviour.

---

Employees Alleged a "Climate of Fear"

After Green was publicly identified, more current and former Arcadia employees spoke to journalists.

The Guardian reported allegations involving:

• bullying;
• humiliation;
• threatening behaviour;
• inappropriate touching;
• harassment;
• and a culture in which staff were afraid to challenge Green.

One former senior Topshop executive, Jane Shepherdson, publicly described him as a bully.

Green rejected allegations of unlawful conduct and said remarks being discussed had been banter without an intention to offend.

These are allegations, not criminal findings.

That distinction must remain explicit.

---

The Seven-Figure Confidential Settlements

The Guardian also reported that several employees who alleged harassment or bullying received large confidential settlement payments, in some cases said to be in seven figures.

The cases became part of a much wider British debate about wealthy employers using:

• non-disclosure agreements;
• confidentiality clauses;
• settlements;
• and litigation

to prevent workplace allegations from becoming public.

A later parliamentary inquiry into NDAs specifically referenced the Green controversy as an example of the issue.

A settlement does not prove the truth of the underlying allegation.

Companies settle disputes for many reasons.

But the combination of multiple complainants, large payments and legal efforts to maintain confidentiality became deeply damaging to Green's reputation.

---

Green Went to Court to Prevent Publication

Green and Arcadia fought the Telegraph's effort to publish details of the employee allegations.

The Court of Appeal granted temporary anonymity while the litigation proceeded.

After Lord Hain identified Green using parliamentary privilege, the injunction became far less useful.

Green ultimately abandoned the legal action in January 2019.

His complaint against Lord Hain was later dismissed by the House of Lords standards authorities.

---

The Arizona Assault Case

In 2019 Green faced a separate criminal case in Arizona.

He was charged with four misdemeanor assault counts after a Pilates instructor alleged he touched her inappropriately at a luxury resort.

Green denied wrongdoing.

In January 2020, prosecutors requested dismissal and the charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they could not simply be refiled in the same form.

That final outcome matters.

The Arizona accusations should not be presented as established misconduct.

Green was not convicted in that case.

---

Beyoncé Walked Away From the Partnership

One reputational consequence was highly visible.

Beyoncé's Parkwood Entertainment acquired the remaining share of Ivy Park from the joint venture with Green's Topshop shortly after the workplace allegations became public.

The move ended one of Arcadia's most prestigious celebrity partnerships.

The companies said discussions had been underway for about a year, so it would be inaccurate to claim conclusively that Green's scandal alone caused the split.

But the timing intensified perceptions of reputational isolation.

---

The "King of the High Street" Who Failed to Modernise His Own Empire

Green's original reputation rested on retail instinct.

He was supposed to understand stores better than almost anyone.

That makes the ending particularly striking.

BHS became obsolete.

Arcadia failed to modernise fast enough.

Topshop—once one of Britain's most culturally important fashion brands—ended up being bought out of administration as an online brand.

The physical retail empire Green built disintegrated.

Parliament had already concluded years earlier that BHS showed "little to support the reputation for retail business acumen for which he received his knighthood."

By 2020, Arcadia's collapse made that criticism considerably harder to dismiss.

---

Was Covid Responsible for Arcadia?

Covid was undoubtedly an important factor.

Government lockdowns closed stores for prolonged periods.

Retail footfall collapsed.

Arcadia lost critical Christmas-period trading.

The company itself cited the pandemic as a major reason administration became unavoidable.

But Covid did not create Arcadia's underlying weaknesses.

Competitors with stronger online businesses were better positioned to survive.

Arcadia had spent years falling behind digitally.

The pandemic accelerated a decline already underway.

---

Green's Business Model: Deal-Maker or Retailer?

Even former industry admirers drew an important distinction.

Green was widely regarded as an exceptional negotiator and deal-maker.

But some questioned whether he remained a great retailer.

A retail executive quoted during Arcadia's final crisis said Green had been outstanding at buying and selling companies but much weaker at maintaining their relevance over the long term.

That distinction may best explain the arc of his career.

Green was extremely good at extracting financial value.

The question is whether enough of that value was reinvested into the businesses from which it came.

---

What Parliament Actually Found About Sir Philip Green

The parliamentary record is the strongest basis for a critical assessment.

The committees found that:

• Green exercised dominant control over BHS;
• hundreds of millions were extracted through dividends and related-party arrangements;
• BHS received inadequate or ineffective investment;
• the pension deficit grew substantially;
• Green resisted aspects of the Pensions Regulator's information requests;
• BHS was sold to a buyer Parliament considered manifestly unsuitable;
• and the sale was rushed through despite obvious risks.

These were parliamentary findings.

They were not criminal convictions.

---

What Is NOT Established About Sir Philip Green?

A strongly critical article should still be precise.

Sir Philip Green was not criminally convicted over the BHS collapse.

The Insolvency Service did not pursue director-disqualification proceedings against him after its BHS investigation.

He ultimately paid £363 million to resolve the pension dispute.

The offshore ownership and dividend structures generated major criticism and tax advantages, but the material cited here does not establish criminal tax evasion by Green.

Workplace allegations concerning harassment and bullying remain allegations.

Green denied unlawful behaviour.

The Arizona misdemeanor assault prosecution was dismissed permanently without conviction.

These distinctions strengthen rather than weaken the article.

---

The Philip Green Reputation Collapse

Few British business figures have experienced such a dramatic reversal.

At his peak:

• knighted;
• billionaire;
• owner of Topshop;
• celebrity businessman;
• political adviser;
• international deal-maker;
• "King of the High Street."

By the end:

• BHS collapsed;
• 11,000 jobs disappeared;
• Parliament accused him of systematic extraction;
• a £571 million pension problem dominated headlines;
• MPs demanded removal of his knighthood;
• Green paid £363 million into the pension settlement;
• workplace allegations damaged his reputation further;
• Arcadia collapsed;
• Topshop disappeared from the British high street as an independent retail empire;
• and another major pension deficit emerged.

It is difficult to imagine a more complete destruction of a business reputation.

---

From Knighthood to Parliamentary Condemnation

Green's knighthood may be the most powerful symbol of that reversal.

He was honoured for services to retail.

A decade later, the House of Commons formally questioned whether he deserved to keep the honour because of his conduct toward the employees and pensioners of one of Britain's oldest department stores.

He retained the knighthood.

But the title "Sir" no longer carried the same reputational meaning.

Instead, for many people, it became part of the irony.

---

The Deeper BHS Question

The BHS affair raises a question much larger than Philip Green.

When a privately controlled company is profitable, shareholders are legally entitled to receive dividends.

Owners can structure businesses efficiently.

They can sell assets.

They can minimise tax legally.

They can sell a company they no longer want.

But what happens when all those perfectly legal actions occur together?

When dividends exceed profits.

When assets are sold and leased back.

When wealth moves offshore.

When pension contributions remain insufficient.

When stores are not modernised.

And when the remaining business is ultimately sold for £1 to an unsuitable purchaser.

At what point does financial engineering stop looking like successful entrepreneurship and start looking like extraction?

Parliament clearly believed BHS had crossed that line.

---

Sir Philip Green's Lasting Legacy

Green undeniably created enormous personal and family wealth.

He also built Topshop into a globally recognised fashion name and at one stage employed tens of thousands of people.

Those accomplishments are real.

But his later public record is equally real.

BHS became one of Britain's most notorious corporate collapses.

Arcadia followed.

The Green family's offshore wealth structures became symbols of the widening gap between owners and employees.

The pension controversies forced politicians to ask whether Britain's corporate law adequately protects workers and retirement savings from aggressive financial extraction.

And workplace allegations transformed Green from a brash retail tycoon into one of the most controversial businessmen of the British #MeToo era.

The most damaging description of Philip Green was ultimately not written by a rival retailer, journalist or activist.

It came from the British Parliament.

After examining the record in detail, MPs described the BHS affair as:

"THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM."

For a man once knighted as one of Britain's greatest retailers, that may be the most devastating epitaph of all.

---

Frequently Asked Questions About Sir Philip Green

Who is Sir Philip Green?

Sir Philip Green is a British retail businessman who formerly controlled BHS and Arcadia Group, whose brands included Topshop, Topman, Dorothy Perkins, Burton and Miss Selfridge.

Why is Sir Philip Green controversial?

His reputation was badly damaged by the 2016 BHS collapse, its pension deficit, parliamentary findings concerning dividends and underinvestment, offshore family wealth structures, the later collapse of Arcadia and multiple workplace-misconduct allegations.

How much did Sir Philip Green sell BHS for?

Green's Taveta group sold BHS to Retail Acquisitions Limited in March 2015 for:

£1.

How large was the BHS pension deficit?

At the time of the sale, the schemes' assets were approximately £350 million below liabilities on one measure. The statutory Section 75 buyout deficit was later estimated at approximately:

£571 million.

How much did Philip Green pay toward the BHS pensions?

In February 2017 Green reached a settlement with the Pensions Regulator worth:

£363 million.

How much did the Green family receive from BHS?

Parliament found that BHS Group paid £423 million of dividends during 2002–04 and was told that the Green family received approximately £307 million.

What was the £1.3 billion Arcadia dividend?

In 2005 Taveta Investments paid a record approximately £1.3 billion dividend after a corporate restructuring. Parliament found that the payment was effectively funded by approximately £1 billion of additional borrowing.

Did Sir Philip Green evade tax?

The cited material does not establish criminal tax evasion. Parliament documented offshore structures and arrangements that produced tax advantages, including Jersey property entities and distributions benefiting Green family interests. Those are better described as controversial tax planning rather than proven tax evasion.

Was Philip Green stripped of his knighthood?

No. The House of Commons passed a motion calling for the Honours Forfeiture Committee to recommend that his knighthood be cancelled, but the honour was not ultimately forfeited.

Was Philip Green banned from being a company director?

No. After its BHS investigation, the Insolvency Service said in 2018 that it did not intend to seek Green's disqualification.

What were the workplace allegations against Sir Philip Green?

Former employees alleged bullying, harassment, humiliation and other inappropriate conduct. Lord Peter Hain named Green in Parliament as the businessman behind allegations that had been subject to a privacy injunction. Green categorically denied unlawful behaviour.

Was Philip Green convicted of sexual assault?

No. The workplace allegations did not produce such a conviction. A separate Arizona misdemeanor assault case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2020.

What happened to Arcadia?

Arcadia entered administration in November 2020, placing approximately 13,000 jobs at risk. Its brands were subsequently sold to other retailers, effectively ending Green's British high-street empire.

---

Principal sources

UK Parliament — Joint Work and Pensions / Business Committee report into BHS. The strongest primary source. It documents Green-family dividends, offshore-related arrangements, inadequate investment, pension deterioration and the committees' extraordinarily severe conclusions.

UK Parliament — BHS debate, October 2016. Records the House of Commons motion condemning the £1 sale and calling for removal of Green's knighthood.

The Pensions Regulator — BHS regulatory intervention report. Primary evidence concerning the anti-avoidance investigation and the £363 million settlement with Green and Taveta.

UK Insolvency Service — BHS investigation, March 2018. Essential counterbalance confirming that the government did not intend to seek Green's director disqualification after its investigation.

UK Parliament — Lord Hain statement. Primary parliamentary record identifying Green in connection with workplace allegations that had previously been subject to an injunction.

The Guardian — Arcadia administration. Detailed reporting on the collapse, 13,000 jobs at risk and years of underinvestment/digital weakness.

The Pensions Regulator — Arcadia intervention. Primary record showing the Green family's £100 million cash support and £210 million total asset security for the pension schemes.

The Guardian — Arizona criminal case outcome. Confirms that the misdemeanor assault prosecution against Green was dismissed with prejudice.

---

This article is a journalistic investigation based on the public sources listed above. Sir Philip Green was not criminally convicted over the BHS collapse, was not disqualified as a company director, and ultimately paid £363 million to settle the BHS pension dispute. Workplace allegations of harassment and bullying remain allegations; Green categorically denied unlawful behaviour. A separate Arizona misdemeanor assault case was dismissed with prejudice. The offshore structures and dividends described were documented by Parliament and generated tax advantages, but the cited material does not establish criminal tax evasion. Where allegations could not be substantiated by documentary evidence, that is stated clearly. Nothing in this article should be read as an assertion of criminal conduct by Sir Philip Green or any other person. This content is published by NegativePublicRelations.com as editorial analysis of matters of public interest and British corporate-governance reputation.