Reliance National Insurance Company (Europe), Re [2025] EWHC 789 (Ch) (19 March 2025)

Reliance National Insurance Company (Europe), Re [2025] EWHC 789 (Ch) (19 March 2025)

The Scheme of Arrangement is sanctioned because statutory requirements were met, Policyholders are creditors following the Part VII Transfer, the voting process and claim valuation were conducted in accordance with court-approved methodology, objections lacked evidential support, and the Scheme offers a materially better outcome than administration.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 789 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Reliance National Insurance Company (Europe) Limited; Creditor/objector: Calabria; Creditor/objector: ASL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Scheme of Arrangement Under Companies Act 2006 / Sanction Hearing
Legal Topics
Scheme of Arrangement, Creditor Voting, Cross Border Recognition, Valuation of Claims, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Company Law Insurance Law Scheme of Arrangement Creditor Voting Cross Border Recognition Valuation of Claims Procedural Fairness

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reliance National Insurance Company (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Calabria

Creditor/objector

ASL

Creditor/objector

Procedural Posture

Scheme of Arrangement Under Companies Act 2006 / Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scheme of Arrangement should be sanctioned under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether Policyholders are creditors following the Part VII Transfer
  3. 3 Whether statutory voting majorities were achieved

Ratio Decidendi

The Scheme of Arrangement is sanctioned because statutory requirements were met, Policyholders are creditors following the Part VII Transfer, the voting process and claim valuation were conducted in accordance with court-approved methodology, objections lacked evidential support, and the Scheme offers a materially better outcome than administration.