People’s Energy (Supply) Limited (in administration), Re

The court granted the administrators permission to convene a single meeting of all proposed scheme creditors to vote on a Part 26 scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006. At the convening stage the court considered class composition, notification, adequacy of the explanatory materials and whether any jurisdictional "showstoppers" existed. The judge held that a single class was appropriate because unsecured trade creditors and potential data breach creditors have the same pre‑scheme rights (proof in the administration) and the same post‑scheme rights (the claims submission process and access to a scheme adjudicator), and that there was "more to unite than to divide".

The court found that the Practice Statement letter and explanatory statement had been adequately distributed and drafted, that notice given (approximately five to six weeks) was sufficient for this largely consumer constituency, that the proposed streamlined adjudication process and claims bar date were intelligible, and that no obvious jurisdictional impediment or "showstopper" prevented convening a single meeting. The court also authorised a confidentiality regime for the Hiscox settlement subject to an application route for inspection.

Background and parties: The company, a former retail energy supplier, and its parent (PEC) are both in administration following revocation of licences. Before administration there was a data breach affecting approximately 376,000 accounts (some 300,000 customers). The administrators propose a Part 26 scheme for the company to: (1) set a claims submission deadline (a "hard bar date"); (2) release claims not made by that deadline (including data breach claims against the company, PEC and the insurer Hiscox) subject to certain qualifications; and (3) introduce a streamlined, court‑contained adjudication process for disputed claims.

Nature of the application: The administrators applied for an order convening a single meeting of all scheme creditors (trade creditors and former customers, including potential GDPR/data breach claimants) to consider and, if thought fit, approve the proposed scheme.

Issues for decision at the convening hearing:

• whether notice to affected persons complied with the Chancellor's Practice Statement and was adequate for consumer creditors;
• whether the explanatory materials were adequate;
• whether the creditors should be divided into separate classes or convened as a single class;
• whether any jurisdictional "showstoppers" or other obvious reasons existed to refuse convening the meeting (including releases of third parties and international effectiveness); and
• whether confidential settlement documentation (Hiscox settlement) could be protected from public inspection subject to an application route on notice.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court emphasised that at the convening stage it should not determine the merits of the scheme but should consider class composition and any manifest jurisdictional impediment. The court accepted that although data breach claims are uncertain in validity and quantum, and some claimants may have statutory third‑party rights against Hiscox (and potentially claims against PEC), those differences did not materially fracture the class because in the comparator (a distributing administration) all provable unsecured claims rank pari passu and the scheme gives the same post‑scheme rights to all creditors. The Practice Statement letter and explanatory statement were found adequate and the five to six weeks' notice was sufficient. No obvious jurisdictional roadblock was identified; the question of whether third‑party releases should be sanctioned was left for the sanction hearing. The court authorised sealing the confidential Hiscox settlement from public inspection subject to a mechanism for requests to inspect.

Disposition: The court ordered that a single meeting of scheme creditors be convened and made the draft order sought, subject to deletion of paragraph 5(b), and acceded to the confidentiality relief sought in relation to the Hiscox settlement.

The court granted the administrators' application to convene a single scheme meeting. Permission was given to convene one class of Scheme Creditors because unsecured trade and data breach claims share the same pre‑scheme and post‑scheme rights and there was more to unite than divide. The court also held that notice and explanatory materials were adequate, found no obvious jurisdictional "showstopper" to convening, and authorised a confidentiality regime for the Hiscox settlement, all subject to detailed consideration at any sanction hearing. The order was made in the terms of the draft, subject to deletion of paragraph 5(b).