Be informed about free updates
Simply log in to Utilities Myft Digest – delivered directly to your arrived mail.
Thames Water faced an increase in opposition in his attempt to approach a £ 3 billion -pound court on Monday, after the judge agreed to listen to the “public interest” complaints from the environmental campaign and other groups of creditors who sought to block the plan.
A group of bond owners and lenders were represented by the parent company regulated by the utility company – Thames Water Limited – published by court documents that first opposed the emergency financing. They argued that the “redemption terms” in financing would allow borrowers to make a “convenient return” to “basically without risk”, which would allow them to “effective control” over any future restructuring.
The intervention came at the beginning of a crowded four -day court hearing, in which Britain’s largest water levels seek approval to take up to £ 3 billion from so -called class A bond holders, which include US HEDGE Funds like Elliotta, such as Elliotta Management, to eliminate the direct cash crumb .
The proposed loan carries a huge 9.75 percent annual interest rate, as well as further fees and difficult conditions for which critics claim will surrender more control over the company.
The London High Court also enabled Charlie Maynard, a liberal Democrat representative who represented an ecological campaign in the Oxfordshire Election Unit of Witney, to talk about the “public interest and interest of consumers” to consider the proposal of restructuring Thames Water.
In the documents submitted to the court, Maynard claimed that the Thames Water restructuring plan “is a bad, short -term repair” that “exacerbates rather than alleviates Thames’ loop for water debt.”
Without a loan, Thames Water says he will run out of cash on March 24 and take the risk of collapsing into the Government’s special administration regime, a form of temporary renationalization. This procedure would allow the services to continue, while the debt is frozen on the eve of the potential restructuring and sale of business or complete nationalization.
The loan proposal led to a more indignant splash between the company and its lower -ranked class B holders, who claim that the utility program did not properly consider their rival offer, which they say comes with lower costs with less restrictive conditions.
These class B loans, who could face almost total losses if the proposed restructuring of the company went forward, claimed that they would better manage under a special administration than according to the company plan.
They enrolled in written reports to the court that the planned loan from the Class A had “had a” built -in mechanics of control “that were typical of the” aggressive loan strategy into ownership he accepted in trouble [debt] Hedge funds ”.
Thames Water said that a loan is a necessary bridge for wider restructuring, which will give it time to raise capital from new investors and negotiating about his debts.
Maynard claimed in his written submission that the loan of class A “provides a bridge nowhere”, and “a better and honest course would be a special administration”.
The verdict is not expected at least a week after the hearing would be scheduled for Thursday.
