What happens when the UK’s largest water company starts running out of cash? Since 2024, Thames Water has been fighting to secure its financial future, drawing in creditors, shareholders, regulators, the Government and the courts. Most businesses will never face that level of scrutiny. Many, however, will face cash flow pressures, covenant breaches or disputes between stakeholders, and the lessons for directors are the same whatever the size of the business.
In February 2025, the High Court sanctioned an interim restructuring plan giving Thames Water access to up to £3 billion of new funding. Its purpose was to buy time while a longer-term recapitalisation was negotiated. Junior creditors, Thames Water’s parent company and MP, Charlie Maynard, challenged the plan, but the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals in April 2025 (Kington S.à r.l. v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 475).
At the time of writing, a creditor-led recapitalisation is still under negotiation, Thames Water has sought a further £2.4 billion of emergency funding, and the Government has pledged legislation to allow public ownership of water companies. The outcome remains uncertain.
Financial difficulties usually build over time. Rising debt, increasing costs and liquidity pressure steadily reduce a business’s options long before a crisis point is reached.
Warning signs include growing reliance on short-term funding, approaching covenant tests or refinancing dates, suppliers tightening terms and forecasts that keep being revised downwards. The earlier these are identified, the more options remain on the table.
Early on, directors may be able to refinance, raise investment, sell non-core assets or renegotiate key contracts. As cash runs down, those options disappear.
When deciding whether to sanction a restructuring plan, the court compares it with the “relevant alternative”: what is most likely to happen if the plan fails. For Thames Water, that was special administration. Delaying difficult decisions rarely creates new options. More often, it leaves the business choosing between a difficult plan and an even worse alternative.
Senior creditors, junior creditors, shareholders, politicians and regulators have all taken very different views on Thames Water’s future. This is typical of corporate distress: lenders want to recover their capital, shareholders want to preserve value, and customers and suppliers want certainty. Directors are left to navigate these competing interests while protecting the long-term future of the business.
Ordinarily, directors must promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders. However, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court confirmed that directors must also consider creditors’ interests where the company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency, or where an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable. The worse the position, the more weight those interests carry.
Directors also risk personal liability for wrongful trading if, once they knew or ought to have concluded that insolvent liquidation or administration could not reasonably be avoided, they fail to take every step to minimise losses to creditors. Good governance is the best protection:
The court’s role in Thames Water was not to find the perfect answer. Where a plan is imposed on dissenting creditors, the court must be satisfied that they would be no worse off than in the relevant alternative and that the plan is fair. Directors face the same reality: the aim is the best realistic option, not one that satisfies everyone.
The key message from Thames Water is simple: in financial distress, time is a board’s most valuable resource, and it often runs out faster than expected. Spot the warning signs early, understand how your duties change, and take advice before your options narrow.
Waterfront Law can:
For more information, reach out to Andrew Gordon.
Corporate Law
Commercial Law and Data Protection