CB&I UK Ltd, Re

The court considered two applications in Part 26A restructuring proceedings: (1) an application by the LC Ad Hoc Group for specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 or, alternatively, an order under CPR 35.9 requiring the Plan Company to produce a compiled document containing project-level analyses for the Top 25 Contracts; and (2) an application by Reficar to extend the timetable and length of the sanction hearing.

The judge applied a pragmatic Part 8 approach, taking into account the large volume of material already provided in a data room (including all material given to the Plan Company’s expert Grant Thornton), the urgency of the restructuring timetable under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, and the need for proportionality. The court found no clear showing that the requested compiled analyses existed or that there was a serious information imbalance justifying an order under CPR 35.9. The request was therefore refused as disproportionate and potentially onerous, and because much of the requested information would be forward‑looking and evaluative.

Separately, the court held that procedural fairness and the complexity of issues (valuation, factual and expert evidence, and novel legal points) justified increasing the sanction hearing timetable: two days pre-reading and six days of hearing time, with the hearing shifted to early February 2024.

This judgment deals with two discrete applications arising from restructuring proceedings under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 in relation to CB&I UK Ltd (the Plan Company).

Nature of the applications

• The LC Ad Hoc Group sought specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 in relation to a schedule of project-level information (paragraph 1 of Schedule 1), limited to the Top 25 Contracts, and alternatively sought an order under CPR 35.9 requiring the Plan Company to produce a compiled document recording that information.
• Reficar sought an extension of the sanction hearing timetable from one day pre-reading plus four hearing days to two days pre-reading plus six hearing days.

Principal issues for the court

• Whether the documents or a compiled document requested by the LC Ad Hoc Group exist and are sufficiently relevant and material to the sanction hearing to justify specific disclosure or an order under CPR 35.9.
• Whether there was a significant imbalance of information between parties such that the court should require the Plan Company to produce new compiled information.
• Whether, in the interests of procedural fairness and case management, the sanction hearing timetable should be extended.

Key facts and evidence

• The claim form was issued on 24 September 2023; a convening hearing on 28 September 2023 produced directions including a sanction hearing to be listed commencing 27 November 2023 and a timetable for responsive evidence to be filed by 6 November 2023.
• The LC AHG’s advisors (Houlihan Lokey) had access to a data room opened on 12 October 2023; all material provided to Grant Thornton was placed in that data room and made available to opposing creditors' advisors (around 120 advisers had access).
• The Plan Company’s solicitors said no single up‑to‑date, centralised analysis of the type requested existed and that compiling it would be onerous; some project information provided in the data room dated from March 2023.

Court’s reasoning and decision

• The court emphasised the Part 8 pragmatic approach to disclosure: it must weigh the amount of information already provided, likely materiality to issues at the sanction hearing, other available sources, urgency and proportionality.
• The judge accepted that substantial material, including everything provided to Grant Thornton, had been placed in the data room and made available to opposing parties; this undermined a finding of serious information imbalance.
• The applicant did not demonstrate with sufficient particularity that the requested analyses were both likely to exist and really material to the issues the court would decide at sanction. Much of what was sought was forward‑looking evaluative information not readily available in central form and the production of which would be onerous and disproportionate.
• The court therefore declined to order production under CPR 35.9 or grant specific disclosure for the requested compiled documents.
• On the Reficar application, the court accepted there had been limited time to digest substantial material prior to the convening hearing, and that issues to be decided (including valuation and the relevant alternative) were potentially complex and justified more time. The court granted two days pre-reading and six hearing days and moved the sanction hearing to early February 2024 to preserve procedural fairness.

Subsidiary findings and context

• The court reiterated that the burden at the sanction hearing rests on the Plan Company to demonstrate that statutory jurisdictional requirements are met and that the Plan is fair; failure to produce material might affect sanctionability.
• The court warned against allowing restructuring proceedings to become protracted due to disproportionate disclosure demands, while recognising that Part 26A’s cramdown features may require longer hearings in some cases.

First application (disclosure/production of compiled project-level analyses): application refused. The court found that a substantial body of material, including all documents given to the Plan Company’s expert, had been placed in a data room and made available to opposing creditors; there was no clear showing of a serious information imbalance, the requested compilation was likely onerous and forward‑looking, and the materiality threshold for an order under CPR 35.9 was not met. Second application (Reficar timetable extension): allowed. The court increased the sanction hearing allocation to two days’ pre-reading and six hearing days and moved the hearing to early February 2024 on grounds of procedural fairness and the complexity of valuation and other issues.