Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest
Two groups of creditors are fighting over information in a company's restructuring. One group's request for more information was denied because they already had enough. The other group got more time to present their case because the situation is complicated.

Key Facts

  • Restructuring proceedings under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 for CB&I UK Ltd.
  • Application by LC Ad Hoc Group (LC AHG) for disclosure of documents/information related to 'Top 25 Contracts'.
  • Opposing creditors include LC AHG, Refineria de Cartagena SA (Reficar), and 'the Wood Parties'.
  • Grant Thornton prepared a valuation report for the Plan Company.
  • Data room containing information provided to Grant Thornton was made available to creditors' advisors.
  • Reficar applied to extend the timetable for the sanction hearing.
  • US $2 billion cash collateral obligation in March 2024.
  • Dutch proceedings are co-conditional with the current proceedings.

Legal Principles

In Part 26A restructuring proceedings, the court must balance urgency with fairness to all parties.

Companies Act 2006, Part 26A; CPR Part 8

The court has discretion under CPR 35.9 to order the production of a document containing relevant information, but this is an unusual order.

CPR 35.9

The court can vary existing orders under CPR 3.1(7).

CPR 3.1(7)

Procedural fairness is required in restructuring plans.

Re Virgin Active Holdings Ltd (No 1) [2021] EWHC 814 (Ch)

Outcomes

The LC AHG's application for disclosure/production of further information regarding the 'Top 25 Contracts' was refused.

Sufficient information had already been provided in the data room. The requested information was not deemed sufficiently material to the sanction hearing, involved forward-looking judgments, and would be onerous to produce. There was no significant information imbalance.

Reficar's application to extend the sanction hearing timetable was granted.

The court had more information than at the convening hearing, particularly regarding the nature of the letters of credit and the Plan Company's continued ability to secure new contracts. The existing timetable was deemed insufficient to allow for fair consideration of the complex issues. The court balanced the urgency with the need for procedural fairness.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.