Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd, Re

Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd, Re

The relevant alternative to the plan is a Special Administration Regime (SAR), not the B Plan. The Class B creditors are out of the money in the SAR and are no worse off under the plan. The plan is fair, does not unfairly divert value, and the June Release Condition and other control terms do not constitute a 'blot' or breach competition law. Releases are not objectionable. Despite high costs, the public interest in facilitating a rescue and the likelihood that creditors, not customers, will bear the costs justifies sanctioning the plan.

Parties
Applicant Company: Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd; Supporting Creditors: Ad hoc group of Class A supporting creditors; Supporting Creditors: Group of bank supporting creditors; Opposing Creditors: Ad hoc group of Class B opposing creditors; Opposing Creditor: Thames Water Limited; Public Interest Objector: Mr Charlie Maynard MP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Restructuring Plan (part 26 A, Companies Act 2006) / Sanction Judgment
Outcome
Plan sanctioned; application granted.
Legal Topics
Restructuring Plan, Cross Class Cram Down, No Worse Off Test, Special Administration Regime, Competition Law, Creditors' Rights, Scheme of Arrangement
Insolvency Law Company Law Financial Regulation Restructuring Plan Cross Class Cram Down No Worse Off Test Special Administration Regime Competition Law +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd

Applicant Company

Ad hoc group of Class A supporting creditors

Supporting Creditors

Group of bank supporting creditors

Supporting Creditors

Ad hoc group of Class B opposing creditors

Opposing Creditors

Thames Water Limited

Opposing Creditor

Mr Charlie Maynard MP

Public Interest Objector

Procedural Posture

Restructuring Plan (part 26 A, Companies Act 2006) / Sanction Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the relevant alternative to the proposed restructuring plan under Part 26A?
  2. 2 Are dissenting Class B creditors 'no worse off' under the plan than in the relevant alternative?
  3. 3 Is the plan fair and does it comply with the horizontal comparison principle?

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant alternative to the plan is a Special Administration Regime (SAR), not the B Plan. The Class B creditors are out of the money in the SAR and are no worse off under the plan. The plan is fair, does not unfairly divert value, and the June Release Condition and other control terms do not constitute a 'blot' or breach competition law. Releases are not objectionable. Despite high costs, the public interest in facilitating a rescue and the likelihood that creditors, not customers, will bear the costs justifies sanctioning the plan.

Court Disposition

Plan sanctioned; application granted.

Orders

  • The restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006 is sanctioned.
  • The plan company is authorised to implement the plan and related transactions.