Project Verona Limited, Re

Project Verona Limited, Re

The plan is sanctioned because it meets statutory requirements for cross-class cram down, provides a better outcome for dissenting creditors than the relevant alternative (administration), and no unfairness in distribution of restructuring benefits is established. No creditor attended to object, and the court finds no jurisdictional or procedural defects.

Parties
Applicant: Project Verona Limited; Assenting Creditor: Secured Creditor; Assenting Creditor: Category B Landlords; Assenting Creditor: Category C Landlords; Dissenting Creditor: Category A Rating Authority Creditors; Dissenting Creditor: Category B Rating Authority Creditors; Dissenting Creditor: Category C Rating Authority Creditors; Dissenting Creditor: Non-Critical Creditors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Sanction Hearing
Outcome
plan sanctioned
Legal Topics
Cross Class Cram Down, Restructuring Plan, Sanction of Plan, Creditor Meetings, Pari Passu Principle
Insolvency Company Law Cross Class Cram Down Restructuring Plan Sanction of Plan Creditor Meetings Pari Passu Principle

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Project Verona Limited

Applicant

Secured Creditor

Assenting Creditor

Category B Landlords

Assenting Creditor

Category C Landlords

Assenting Creditor

Category A Rating Authority Creditors

Dissenting Creditor

Category B Rating Authority Creditors

Dissenting Creditor

Category C Rating Authority Creditors

Dissenting Creditor

Non-Critical Creditors

Dissenting Creditor

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory requirements for sanctioning a restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006 are met
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to sanction the plan with cross-class cram down
  3. 3 Whether the plan is fair in its distribution of restructuring benefits among creditors and shareholders

Ratio Decidendi

The plan is sanctioned because it meets statutory requirements for cross-class cram down, provides a better outcome for dissenting creditors than the relevant alternative (administration), and no unfairness in distribution of restructuring benefits is established. No creditor attended to object, and the court finds no jurisdictional or procedural defects.

Court Disposition

plan sanctioned

Orders

  • The restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006 is sanctioned.
  • Cross-class cram down is approved for dissenting creditor classes.