A previously proposed scheme had been approved by 95% of creditors attending and voting, but had been opposed by the FCA and the judge had refused to sanction it as he considered that the creditors had not been given the information to enable them to appreciate the alternative options or to understand the basis on which they were being asked to sacrifice their redress claims.
Further the judge had not accepted that the failure to approve the earlier scheme would result in the immediate administration of Amigo. He was right, 10 months later Amigo proposed a new scheme providing a return to creditors over three times what was offered under the previous scheme.
Notice of the new scheme was sent to the email addresses Amigo held for 88% of its past and present customers. Where Amigo held no email address, newspaper advertisements were published, and there was extensive online and social media publicity, including videos explaining the scheme.
In addition, an independent solicitor was appointed as “customer advocate” to liaise with Amigo customers, review the materials provided by Amigo and provide a report to the court on any issues arising. Unlike the first scheme where the judge thought that the explanatory statement did not provide the creditors with accurate enough information to understand the basis on which they were being asked to release their redress claims, the judge observed at the directions stage, supported by the opinion of the customer advocate, that the format was appropriate to the audience at which it was aimed.
An order was made giving permission for the scheme meetings to go ahead.
In the matter of All Scheme Ltd  EWHC 549 (Ch)