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.

Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.