Shareholder agreements—sometimes called stockholders’ agreements or pacte d’actionnaires—are powerful private contracts that go far beyond a company’s public articles of association. They shape how ownership, control, and governance work in practice, and they are especially important in privately held companies across Europe, such as Dutch BVs, German GmbHs, or French SARLs. Unlike public documents, they remain confidential, giving shareholders the freedom to design bespoke rules while keeping sensitive arrangements private.

At their core, shareholder agreements serve several vital functions: they stabilize ownership and control, protect minority interests, regulate share transfers, and predetermine governance processes and strategic decisions. They also clarify how shareholders can exit, how disputes will be resolved, and how directors’ responsibilities interact with shareholder rights.

We begin by examining the legal nature and enforceability of these agreements. A shareholder agreement is fundamentally a contract, binding only its parties. To maintain continuity when new investors join, most agreements use accession clauses or deeds of adherence, ensuring that incoming shareholders accept the existing rules. But these agreements cannot override mandatory company law or directors’ fiduciary duties. Courts will not enforce provisions that conflict with peremptory company law or that improperly restrict directors’ discretion. To strengthen enforceability, many drafters mirror key provisions in the articles of association, putting third parties on notice while keeping more sensitive arrangements in the private agreement. Remedies for breach include damages, injunctions, and even substitute performance in some jurisdictions, with civil law countries adding an overlay of good faith obligations.

Next, we explore the key contractual provisions that define shareholder relationships:

• Pre-emption rights and transfer restrictions: Prevent shares from falling into undesirable hands. Rights of first refusal, lock-up periods, and consent clauses are common tools. Unauthorized transfers may still be valid but expose the seller to liability or trigger penalty clauses. Exceptions often include permitted transfers to affiliates or family.

• Drag-along and tag-along rights: These protect both majority and minority shareholders in a sale. Tag-along rights guarantee minorities the chance to exit on the same terms as the majority, while drag-along rights ensure a majority can force a full-company sale, preventing small holders from blocking a lucrative deal.

• Reserved matters and veto rights: Certain fundamental decisions—like changes to capital structure, mergers, major expenditures, or liquidation—require supermajority or unanimous approval, giving minorities blocking power.

• Deadlock provisions: Crucial in 50/50 ventures, these define what counts as deadlock and set out resolution methods such as escalation procedures, mediation, or buy-sell mechanisms like the Russian roulette or Texas shoot-out clauses. These ensure the company can move forward even if the shareholders cannot.

• Restrictive covenants: Clauses such as non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality protect the company’s business value, especially when founders or key managers exit. Enforceability depends on reasonableness in scope, duration, and geography, with special limits under EU competition law.

In conclusion, shareholder agreements are indispensable tools for shaping ownership, governance, and exit strategies. They balance flexibility, confidentiality, and enforceability, providing a framework that statutory law and standard constitutions cannot. But they demand careful drafting: attention to jurisdiction-specific rules, alignment with corporate law, and clarity in defining rights and obligations. Mastering these agreements—and their vocabulary—is essential for anyone involved in corporate law or cross-border business in Europe.

In this episode, we explore four landmark European corporate insolvency cases—Air Berlin, Cimolai S.p.A., Collins & Aikman, and Thomas Cook Group—highlighting key legal strategies, coordination challenges, and stakeholder impacts.

• Air Berlin (2017): Germany-based airline collapsed after Etihad withdrew financial support. Main insolvency proceedings were opened in Germany under the EU Insolvency Regulation, with COMI disputes arising over Austrian subsidiary NIKI. The case involved liquidation and asset sales, with no recovery for unsecured creditors.

• Cimolai S.p.A. (2023): Italian construction firm faced insolvency due to risky derivatives. Combined Italian and UK restructuring processes overcame the post-Brexit Gibbs rule to bind English-law creditors. The dual-track plan preserved jobs and avoided liquidation.

• Collins & Aikman (2005): A US-linked insolvency led to the UK administering 24 EU subsidiaries across 10 countries. This pioneering centralized approach used “synthetic secondary proceedings,” influencing later EU law and preserving 5,000 jobs through a going-concern sale.

• Thomas Cook Group (2019): The travel giant’s collapse led to fragmented national insolvency proceedings. While the UK entity was liquidated, subsidiaries like Condor were saved. The case sparked calls for EU-level reforms in travel sector insolvencies.

Each case illustrates evolving strategies in cross-border insolvency, the role of COMI, the impact on creditors and employees, and the growing need for international cooperation.

Corporate Insolvency Law: Key Concepts and Procedures

• Objective: Provides a structured approach for handling insolvent companies through rescue or liquidation.

• Distinct from personal insolvency, which focuses on giving individuals a fresh start.

• Goal: Balance the rights and interests of creditors, shareholders, and employees.

• Common Law Systems (e.g., UK): Use procedures like administration, receivership, and Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs).

• Civil Law Systems (e.g., Czech Republic): Use statutory procedures like reorganizace (reorganization) and konkurz (liquidation).

• Shared Aim: Maximizing creditor recovery while preserving viable businesses where possible.

• Initiated by a secured creditor.

• Receiver manages and sells specific assets to repay that creditor.

• Not focused on saving the business.

"Receivership is focused, creditor-driven, and does not prioritize company rescue."

• Provides a statutory moratorium from creditor actions.

• Administrator may run the business, sell it, or propose restructuring.

• Exit routes: return to directors, liquidation, CVA, or pre-pack sale.

"Administration offers temporary legal protection while exploring rescue or better-value asset sales."

• Debt restructuring agreement proposed by the company and insolvency practitioner.

• Approved if 75% of creditors (by value) vote in favor.

• Supervised by an appointed insolvency professional.

• Court-supervised plan involving creditor class voting and judicial confirmation.

• Allows continued business operation while restructuring debt.

• Licensed professionals who manage different aspects of insolvency:

  • Receiver: For secured creditors.

  • Administrator: Business stabilization and rescue.

  • Liquidator: Wind-up and asset distribution.

• Types of creditors:

  • Secured: Rights over specific assets.

  • Unsecured: No asset security.

  • Preferential: Statutory priority (e.g., employees).

• Creditor powers:

  • Vote on CVAs/reorganization plans.

  • Form creditors’ committees (e.g., věřitelský výbor in Czech law).

  • Review reports and challenge practitioner decisions.

"Creditors have legal tools to monitor, influence, and, if needed, oppose insolvency outcomes."

• Ensures coordination between main and secondary insolvency proceedings.

• Case Study: EuroBuild AG – German main proceedings with Polish secondary proceedings to ensure fairness and consistency.

• Possible outcomes:

  • Rescue (e.g., ModeTex S.A. – returned to profitability).

  • Job retention (e.g., XYZ Electronics – saved 60% of jobs).

  • Higher creditor returns (compared to liquidation).

  • Liquidation, if rescue is not viable.

Let me know if you'd like this turned into a PDF handout, a presentation slide deck, or an ESL-focused lesson.

I. Purpose and Scope of Corporate Insolvency LawII. Cross-System VariationsIII. Core Insolvency Procedures1. Receivership (Creditor-Driven)2. Administration (UK – Rescue-Oriented)3. Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) (UK)4. Reorganizace (Czech Republic)IV. Insolvency PractitionersV. Creditor Rights and ParticipationVI. Cross-Border Insolvency (EU Regulation 2015/848)VII. Outcomes and Real-World Application