In the matter of Chaptre Finance Plc
[2023] EWHC 1665 (Ch)
Consort Healthcare (Tameside) Plc, Re
20 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1438 (Ch)
High Court
A company wants to restructure its debts. A judge decided to let its creditors vote on the plan, even though one creditor is against it. The judge will decide later if the plan is legally sound, but for now, the vote will proceed.
Key Facts
- •Consort Healthcare (Tameside) PLC (Plan Company) applied for a restructuring plan under section 901C of the Companies Act 2006.
- •Three creditors involved: Consort Healthcare (Tameside) Intermediate Limited (supporting), Ambac Assurance UK Limited (supporting), and Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (opposing).
- •The Plan aims to compromise financial claims and recalibrate obligations under a Project Agreement due to a dispute and resulting adjudication award.
- •The Plan proposes two options: Sustainability Option and Settlement Option.
- •Jurisdictional questions regarding the Plan's impact on the Project Agreement might arise at the sanction hearing.
- •The court considered whether conditions A and B in s901A of CA 2006 were met to convene Plan meetings.
Legal Principles
Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006
Companies Act 2006
Jurisdictional requirements for sanctioning a restructuring plan.
Companies Act 2006
Conditions for convening plan meetings under s901A of CA 2006 (Conditions A and B)
Companies Act 2006
Considerations for determining appropriate creditor classes.
Companies Act 2006
Outcomes
The court granted an order convening meetings of the three creditor classes to vote on the restructuring plan.
The court found no jurisdictional roadblocks to prevent convening the meetings and that conditions A and B of s901A were met. The court acknowledged potential jurisdictional issues for the sanction hearing but didn't see them as immediate roadblocks.
The court determined that the three creditors should vote as separate classes.
Their rights against the Plan Company are significantly different, both before and under the proposed plan.
The court accepted the notice given to creditors as sufficient.
Sufficient notice was provided, and no creditor objected to the timeframe.