A former Rangers oldco administrator arrested during an investigation into the company's affairs is suing Scotland's chief constable and most senior prosecutor for £9m.
David Whitehouse, 51, is seeking the sum from Philip Gormley and lord advocate James Wolffe QC.
Mr Whitehouse and Paul Clark were appointed to the former Rangers Football Club PLC in February 2012 after owner Craig Whyte declared the business insolvent.
The Duff and Phelps administrators were detained and charged by police investigating businessman Whyte's takeover of Rangers in 2011.
Charges against both men were dropped following a court hearing in June 2016.
Mr Whitehouse says his detention was wrong and his lawyers claim he was unlawfully held by detectives.
They also claim there were no reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Whitehouse had broken the law.
Mr Whitehouse also claims police obtained evidence without following proper legal procedure.
The lawyers also claim prosecutors issued an indictment against Mr Whitehouse without any evidential basis.
Mr Whitehouse claims the actions of police and prosecutors resulted in him suffering damage to his reputation.
The Cheshire businessman says his arrest caused him to suffer £1.75m in lost earnings.
On Wednesday, lawyers acting for Mr Whitehouse appeared during a short procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
It emerged during the proceedings Mr Clark is also suing the chief constable and lord advocate.
Lawyers are examining whether or not the actions should be rolled into a single case.
Four months after Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were appointed as Rangers administrators, the business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.
Police Scotland launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the takeover.
They were cleared of any wrong doing months before Craig Whyte was prosecuted for fraud in the High Court.
Mr Whyte was also cleared of any wrongdoing by a jury in 2017.
The chief constable and the lord advocate claim police and prosecutors acted in accordance with correct legal procedure and say Mr Whitehouse's human rights were not breached.
They also claim Mr Whitehouse has not suffered any loss or injury as a result of their actions and believe the case should be dismissed because the lord advocate is exempt from civil action from people who were the subject of a legal investigation.