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.

Introducción

Dentro de las resoluciones concursales publicadas este verano vuelven a cobrar especial protagonismo las relativas a los planes de restructuración. La ley 16/2022, de 5 de septiembre, que introdujo los planes en nuestro ordenamiento cumple ahora dos años de vigencia y poco a poco se va formando un nutrido cuerpo de doctrina jurisprudencial.

Dicha doctrina comienza a perfilar límites en la flexibilidad total que se predica de los planes. En concreto en esta edición de las píldoras concursales reseñamos dos nuevas resoluciones clave, que son:

On 19 August 2024, the High Court handed down its quantum decision in Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch), which for the first time sets out the method for quantifying loss relating to "trading misfeasance" claims.

Introduction

1.All eyes on redemption right

Redemption rights have increasingly been under the spotlight in the past year, as more and more investors contemplate an exit from under-performing investments.

As the redemption of shares involves a return of capital, it is prohibited under Cayman Islands law except to the extent permitted by statute. Section 37 of the Cayman Islands’ Companies Act (the Act) provides:

The Singapore International Commercial Court (the "SICC"), a division of the General Division of the High Court and part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was established in 2015 as a trusted neutral forum to meet increasing demand for effective transnational dispute resolution. It recently considered, as a matter of first impression for the SICC, whether to approve a prepackaged scheme of arrangement for a group of Vietnam-based real estate investment companies under Singapore's recently enacted Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA").

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores (BHS) to pay compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer’s liquidators (Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch)).

在当前的投融资环境下，国资背景的投资方常常承担着地方政府的返投任务，对被投企业的注册地点存在特定诉求，因此，若被投企业未注册在此类投资方期待的特定地区，则投资方可能会要求被投企业迁址以实现当地的招商引资。市场上已出现部分项目的投资方以此作为投资交割的前提条件。

优质企业无疑都是各地的“心头肉”，能为当地带来税收效益、工作岗位等。因此，企业的迁出之路可能面临迁出地政府“不放手”、迁出和迁入程序衔接不顺畅等一系列疑难问题，可能拉长迁址进度，甚至实质上无法最终完成迁址。

为协助企业顺利实现“迁址”目的，我们在相关交易中对企业迁址的命题进行重新思考和思路转换。事实上，除了直接变更注册地址，企业也可考虑通过股权重组进行股权结构的调整，以满足投资方对于变更融资主体及后续上市主体所在地的需求。但此等“重组式迁址”也并非一路坦途，如有不慎，同样可能面临法律和税务的障碍和风险，因此需要提前对这类重组交易进行审慎考量和规划。

一、直接迁址的障碍和难点

As most readers know, Subchapter V of Chapter 11 is the small business reorganization provisions enacted in the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019. SBRA made major changes to how small business cases are handled in an effort to streamline the process, reduce administrative expenses and result in more confirmed Chapter 11 plans. Prior to SBRA and even continuing after enactment of SBRA, small businesses could elect treatment as a small business debtor under Chapter 11.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.

The A&O Shearman team, together with counsel Michael Lok and Jasmine Cheung, acted for the opposing creditor in these Scheme proceedings.