Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

The latest quarterly figures from The Insolvency Service for Q4 of 2023, covering the period October to December, show that company insolvency volumes in England and Wales reached a 30-year high. 25,158 registered companies entered some form of insolvency in 2023. The food and drink sector has not been immune to this, and indeed has seen some of the biggest rises in insolvency as many businesses face significant financial challenges.

Multiple headwinds

We have recently published a few blogs on the hot topic of company insolvencies, including more specifically about:

The English High Court decision of Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch) has provided the most substantive authority on directors' duties to creditors since the decision of the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 (“Sequana”). The case specifically considered the point at which a director’s duty to take into account the interests of creditors arises.

The festive period is a time for celebrating with loved ones, enjoying food and drink, and exchanging gifts. But it can also bring financial challenges. With rising living costs, interest rates at levels not seen for over a decade, and inflation still high, the cost of Christmas can present a further struggle, leaving many overstretched and facing unmanageable debts and insolvency come January.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity