The applicant company unsuccessfully applied for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan. In dismissing the application, the Chancery Division held that despite the court having jurisdiction to sanction the restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006, as decided in [2021] All ER (D) 83 (May), the discretion provided in s 901G of the Act to sanction a plan under condition A was not satisfied. That was because, among other things, the relevant alternative involved on each side's case allowed for the company's continued profitable trading for at least a further year and there was a realistic prospect that the company would be able to discharge its obligations to the bondholders, leaving assets with at least potential for exploitation, which was enough to refute the contention that the shareholder members, as the dissenting class, would be no better off under the relevant alternative than under the plan, as required by s 901F of the Act. Accordingly, the discretion as to whether to sanction the plan did not fall to be exercised.