MPs on the Work and Pensions select committee are investigating a £35m "floating charge" paid to Sir Philip Green's lawyers from the assets of failed retailer BHS.
The committee questioned whether the payment was a "standard move", as the administrator responsible claimed, pointing out that it was made without the knowledge of one of the two administrators and was later reversed.
The history of the £35m floating charge began, the committee said, in 2015 as a loan from Sir Philip Green's company Arcadia to Dominic Chapell's Retail Acquisitions Limited, as part of the deal for the latter to acquire BHS from the former for £1.
At that point the loan was for £40m.
Immediately after the sale of BHS, Sir Philip is alleged to have offered to put the entire £40m into the the BHS pension scheme, which was already hundreds of millions of pounds in deficit.
In October, however, the committee said Sir Philip reduced that offer to just £5m. That meant BHS now owed Arcadia the balance - £35m.
As a floating charge, Sir Philip's right to that money came ahead of that of the Pension Protection Fund in the event that the company went into administration, which it did in April 2016.
After BHS went into administration, this debt to Arcadia went into the bucket of the failed company's various assets and liabilities.
The Pension Protection Fund - which took over the BHS pension scheme's liabilities - told the committee that, on 27 October, one of the two administrators, Duff & Phelps, transferred the £35m to Linklaters, the law firm representing Arcadia.
The PPF said this was done without the consent of the other administrator, FRP (which was appointed by the PPF). When FRP found out, they demanded that the money be returned, which it was on the 21 November.
The PPF confirmed that the £35m was the same charge that Sir Philip had promised to pay into the pension scheme in 2015, an offer he later withdrew.
Work and Pensions select committee chair Frank Field said:“The return of the £35 million paid to Arcadia by Duff & Phelps vindicates the PPF's decision to appoint administrators independent from Sir Philip.
"We are inquiring further into the circumstances of this transaction, which was not authorised by the co-administrator. If it was such a completely standard move, as Duff & Phelps claim, one wonders why it was reversed by the co-administrators as one of their first acts upon being appointed, and why the PPF seems to take a rather different view."
The committee also revealed that the cost of the administration was more £1.3 million more than expected.
james.fernyhough@ft.com
