The key paragraph here is 1.2. It says that the company is solvent because of funding to be supplied to it by its parent company.
You can be quite sure that the auditors, who were PWC, will have required that support to be quite robustly documented and that they will have tested the reasonableness of the claim made. So they will, for example (I hope) have tested the ability of the parent company to support BHS Limited with the cash it needed and will have ensured that this support should persist at least until the next audit report was likely to be due.
No, that’s not what that says at all. What it does say is that Taveta *could* support BHS. Something which is obviously true.
You are actually allowed to put a subsidiary into administration without the parent company offering said support. Not often done, true, as people look very askance at those who do it. But it can indeed be done.
This, then, gives rise to some very serious questions. First, the duty of the auditors is to the shareholders in general, and not the current ones in particular. In that case did they know a sale was pending? It seems very likely that they did. And did they ensure that the support of Taveta was transferrable on sale in that case? If not then the basis of preparation for the accounts was meaningless.
No, you’re wandering off into irrelevancy there.