The decision from the Court of Appeal regarding Thames Water's bid to borrow £3bn is critical for the company's survival. If approved, it can restructure and attract new investment, while a rejection could lead to government-supported administration. Perspectives vary, with supporters of the company emphasizing fears of taxpayer costs, while critics argue the plan primarily benefits current lenders. The range of estimated potential costs to taxpayers varies drastically, raising questions about the best path forward, especially in light of the less costly government intervention seen during the Bulb energy firm's collapse.
The fate of debt-laden Thames Water could soon become clearer later on Monday as the Court of Appeal is expected to decide on its £3bn borrowing plan.
If the borrowing plan is approved, Thames Water may restructure its debts and secure new investment, avoiding government-backed administration.
Opponents of Thames Water's plan argue it mainly serves the interests of current lenders and may not benefit taxpayers, citing potential for government rescue cost estimates ranging from £66m to £4bn.
The public interest in this case might best be served by mirroring the government’s approach during the Bulb energy company collapse, which ended up costing significantly less.
Collection
[
|
...
]