In a sanction application, there will be a ‘roadblock’ if it is merely ‘fanciful’ that the funding for the scheme will be put into place. In Re Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd and another; Kington SÀRL and others v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd and another [2026] 1 BCLC 377, the Court of Appeal in England had this to say at paras 218 and 219: “[218] … Mr Day submitted that the judge was wrong to reject the submission made to him that in view of the costs of the Plan, it should not be sanctioned absent “clear and cogent evidence that the equity raise would be achieved and that it could only be achieved at the price paid by the Plan Company”. [219] The judge was right to reject that submission. Before us, it was based on cases dealing with the degree of assurance the Court will require when sanctioning a scheme or plan that it is not acting in vain, for example because the scheme or plan would not be recognised in a jurisdiction where the company holds substantial assets or carries on business (for example Re DTEK Energy BV [2021] EWHC 1551 (Ch) at §27), or where the Court is asked to sanction a scheme or plan where a condition to it taking effect remains outstanding (for example Re Smile Telecoms Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 685 (Ch) at §53 and §56), or where the commercial effectiveness of the scheme is subject to fulfilment of some S/N 9vxADhtcU6zAPdKsfjpg condition (see, for example, Re Morses Club Scheme Ltd [2023] EWHC 1365 (Ch), where the question was whether there was sufficient certainty that commercial conditions would be satisfied as to the funding of a compensation fund, from which scheme claims would be paid).”