The landlord of Superdry plc's flagship store successfully accessed certain documents related to the struggling British fashion retailer’s Part 26A restructuring plan. Superdry's subsidiary, C-Retail Ltd is proposing a restructuring plan that includes extending borrowing maturity dates, rent reductions, guarantee releases, and settling arrears and dilapidation claims.

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, the landlord, informally requested the disclosure of 10 categories of documents. Prudential asserted that it required this additional information to decide whether to support or oppose the restructuring plan.
On 16 May, Sir Alastair Norris of the English High Court allowed C-Retail to convene 13 meetings for creditors to vote on its restructuring plan. Later that day, after considering Prudential’s disclosure application, the Court ordered C-Retail to disclose certain documents to Prudential, including:

• cash flow forecasts on a group basis, recognising no need for a separate forecast for C-Retail, as Superdry and C-Retail clearly ‘stand and fall’ together as a group; and
• an unredacted report of the group’s calculation of estimated recoveries for creditors, under confidentiality restrictions.

However, the Court refused disclosure of underlying calculations, assumptions, and details of the 'Target Operating Model', deeming them irrelevant.

• That the English Court's power to order document inspection is exercised with discretion and in accordance with the "overriding objective".
• In schemes of arrangements and restructuring plans, the Court considers other factors at play such as:
  • providing necessary information to enable creditors to make informed decisions about whether the scheme or plan is in their interests, whether losses are allocated appropriately, and whether the value created by the plan is fairly apportioned;
  • focusing the sanction hearing on the proposed plan in the explanatory statement, not on considering alternatives;
  • determining at a sanction hearing whether an honest creditor looking after its own interests as such creditor might reasonably approve the proposed plan (as opposed to whether the proposed plan is the best or the fairest); and
  • ensuring disclosure and inspection requests are not so burdensome as to distract from the restructuring process.

In summary, the Court’s approach underscores the importance of providing sufficient information to creditors while maintaining confidentiality, and the practicality and efficiency of the restructuring process. Where seeking to obtain underlying granular data would be burdensome and disproportionate, the Court is unlikely to grant such disclosure.
Harneys does not advise on the law of England and Wales, but this judgment will be persuasive in common law jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands, Cayman, and Bermuda.