I would imagine both sides have been looking over the original contract documents recently along with any legal support available to make sure they know what's included in terms of any clauses relating to loss liabilities.

It seems there is no public money to fix roads, pay doctors and nurses, or to keep our military up to date.
However, when it comes to baling out banks, or Water companies, after paying out huge dividends to shareholders, it seems there is lots of money to spare after all.

JRM has tweeted that we should let them go bust and then nationalise it minus the debts. If there is a contract between the government and Thames that commits us to picking up their debt then whoever came up with that should be carted off to the Tower.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. But shareholders are not necessarily the filthy rich constantly getting huge dividends. People (including me) buy shares as a speculative investment. You see a company that you think will do well, or you think is undervalued, and buy some shares in it - you then own a little bit of the business. Sometimes you do get some decent dividends (your share of the profits). Sometimes the value of your shares increases substantially and you can chose to cash in or continue your investment. Sometimes you lose practically all of the money that you invested. I've experiences all of these scenarios.

It seems the media is now asking why the taxpayer should foot the bill if Thames go under. Too right this is capitalism you can't privatise a company with the guarantee that if it goes bust the shareholders will be bailed out.

It provides an essential service so government would have to step in if the company goes bust or to control price increases for the consumer which is the more likely outcome.