In summary, the answer is yes – if you have a company with more than one shareholder, you should almost certainly consider a shareholders` pact. Such a clause prevents other shareholders from taking back the company`s know-how and acting on their own. If there is no agreement, shareholders risk losing valuable information and techniques if one of them leaves the company. In addition, the agreement also defines how dividends are shared. This is important if shareholders make a different contribution to the company. If no agreement is signed, there would always be confusion about how dividends are paid. In short, protection against the kind of problems that often arise between shareholders in private companies. A quick solution is to offer the other shareholder, with an offer of “Russian roulette”, the sale of the shares without valuation. This solution avoids a time-taking evaluation. There are two types of Russian roulette offers and both are generally thought to promote a fair offer, because there is a hook in each of them: According to what the documents say, the usual situation is that once the shares have been offered to other shareholders and the offer is not accepted, the shareholder can sell to a third party. However, constitutions rarely require one party to sell its shares to another – they simply determine what happens when a shareholder wants to sell on its own. Finally, if he is involved in the real estate that is used by the company, there may be steps that need to be taken to remedy this.
Maybe the company rents offices to someone else. The company must ensure that the change of ownership is not contrary to the lease agreement, and if this is the case, the partners should obtain the landlord`s approval. If the outgoing partner has personally guaranteed the lease, the remaining partners may have to negotiate with the owner in order to release the outgoing party. If there is no shareholders` pact as long as shareholders agree on how the company`s business is managed and the relationship between the company and the company is satisfied, no problem is likely. But when these things collapse, there are few things in the general law that can help a lot – often, the solution is drastic and causes the company to cease to exist, or that shareholders are involved in long and costly legal disputes. While a shareholder pact cannot prevent all disputes, it can be a very useful tool to prevent and deal with such difficulties. They are also invaluable if a company`s investors want an exit plan that other shareholders approve in advance. It is therefore essential that shareholders reach a formal agreement with each other at an early stage of their relationship, highlighting and circumventing potential problems in advance. Too often, people come together to believe that they agree on all important issues and think that they do not need formal treaties just to regret it in the event of disagreement. Questions immediately arose: should the outgoing doctor receive money as a buyout? Was there “good will” in practice and, if so, how much? Was the outgoing doctor bound by a restrictive alliance when he decided to return to the territory? Who owned these claims? Did the doctors sign an oral contract for anything? The tags along the rights protect minority shareholders.