Alan Latham, an accountant and film producer, has just seen his main holding company collapse with a £20.4 million loss in film investments written off. What makes this notable is not just the size of the loss — it's that Latham's corporate history shows a pattern of companies being dissolved or struck off the official register, painting a complex picture of how his business operations have been structured over the years.

The £20.4 million write-off at Highfield Grange Production Services, reported by Screen Daily in December 2025, came from a company that invested in films. Public records show that Latham was connected to at least five different UK-registered companies across his career, each with a different story.

How Companies Disappear From the Register

Several of Latham's companies were dissolved through what's called a "voluntary strike-off" — a legal process where a company's directors decide the business is no longer needed and ask to have it removed from the Companies House register. This is routine and happens all the time. Two examples: LATHAM FINANCIAL LIMITED closed down through this method, as did A.R. LATHAM & COMPANY LIMITED, which went from public notice to full dissolution in less than four months in 2015.

One company stood out because of what it actually did. THE KNIFE THAT KILLED ME LIMITED was connected to a 2011 British film adaptation. Latham was the director of this company, which means he was directly involved in making films, not just financing them from behind the scenes.

When the Government Steps In

A different kind of action happened with GF GOODNIGHT LIMITED. Instead of the company choosing to close, Companies House itself forced a strike-off in August 2023. This usually happens when a company fails to file its accounts or other required documents. What caught attention was the timing: Latham registered as a person with significant control of the company on 25 July 2023 — just five weeks before the forced closure notice arrived. Having significant control means legally owning or controlling a meaningful stake in the company. There's nothing illegal about registering this information late, but the timing is close enough that anyone reviewing compliance would take note.

Earlier in Latham's career, he was also director of a steel door company — a sign his background stretched beyond film and into other businesses. That directorship ended in 2008, well before the film finance activity began.

The Bigger Picture: Tax Relief and Film Finance

The Times reported that Latham holds both roles — accountant and producer. This combination matters because of how UK film finance actually works. The government offers tax relief (essentially a refund or credit) to producers of qualifying British films. It's run through HMRC, the tax authority, and requires detailed paperwork proving what money was actually spent. The British Film Institute checks the claims. An accountant working as a producer would understand intimately how these costs are counted and how the relief gets claimed. That structural position gives such people significant influence over how the system functions.

The broader context here is that film tax relief has faced growing scrutiny. Screen Daily's December 2025 reporting noted that HMRC and the BFI have been reviewing whether their controls are tight enough to catch misuse. The government's tax relief on films is governed by specific rules in the Corporation Tax Act. HMRC has a history of challenging schemes it sees as designed mainly to generate tax benefits rather than to make films that could stand on their own commercially.

What the company records show is a network of entities orbiting around one person, with his main investment company now gone into liquidation carrying massive losses. The public record does not say Latham did anything wrong — dissolving and striking off companies are normal, legal steps. What it does show is a picture worth understanding: how film finance, tax incentives, and corporate structures intersect. The full details of where those investments went, what films they funded, and what the tax authorities are currently investigating remain private for now.