Inside: Drafting the proper shareholder agreement to avoid a messy break-up
Drafting a valid shareholder agreement can be a difficult proposition, but they can be invaluable tools in avoiding the even greater costs that come from shareholder disputes.
November 18, 2013 at 03:00 AM
12 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
One way to prevent shareholder disputes, or at least reduce their frequency, is to make sure that your company has a strong and well-crafted shareholder agreement that lays out the rights and responsibilities of the shareholders.
A shareholder agreement can fulfill a variety of roles for a corporation. It can supply the answers to such important questions as the transfer of shares, corporate organization and the enforceability of these provisions.
Transfer of shares
Given enough time, something is bound to happen that will cause a shareholder to leave the corporation, whether willingly or not. And, in many smaller corporations where there are only a few shareholders, that can cause a great deal of upheaval, as one person leaving can change the entire balance of power.
It is impossible, of course, to craft a solution to every possible contingency, and very few corporations are formed with a clear endgame in mind, but a shareholder wanting out of the business is almost an inevitability and should be anticipated. How will a corporation handle the transfer of shares? Can they be sold to an outside party? If not, then will they be bought back by the corporation? If they can be sold to an outside party, are there any limits to who they can be sold to, and will the buyer have the same voting rights the seller had? Will other shareholders have a right of first refusal on those shares? And how will the valuation of these shares be made? Will more stock be issued by the corporation? And, if so, will the current shareholders have pre-emptive rights to acquire that stock to prevent their shares from being diluted? Will there be a limit to how much stock one shareholder can hold? If so, how much will that be?
A good shareholder agreement will answer most, if not all, of these questions. The final factor to consider when drafting the portion of the shareholder agreement that corresponds to these issues is how they will interact with the corporate law of the jurisdiction where the incorporation has or will take place. For example, in both Delaware and Model Business Corporation Act jurisdictions, there are laws regulating agreements that deal with the transfer and valuation of stock, and any shareholder agreement that violates those laws will be found to be invalid.
Corporate organization
Another set of questions that a shareholder agreement should answer is how the company should be run. For example, who will be the directors of the corporation, and who will be the officers? Must they be shareholders? Even if those answers are obvious when the company is being formed, but down the line, circumstances might change so that the issues become muddled. Eventually, officers and directors will likely need to be replaced, and a good shareholder agreement will make that process as streamlined as possible.
The complicating factor in shareholder agreements dealing with the appointment of directors and officers, though, is that a shareholder agreement, by its definition, is an agreement between shareholders. It can only bind the parties who sign it. In many corporations, however, the shareholders are not the only ones who have power in a corporation, and a shareholder agreement will not bind officers and directors, and that can change how a shareholder agreement operates.
For example, a shareholder agreement may provide for the appointment of officers by the shareholders. Under Delaware law, however, the board of directors will still have the power to remove any officers appointed by the shareholders, and in some MBCA states, including New York, the board can suspend officers for cause without shareholder approval.
Access to the information
One other issue that a shareholder agreement should address is what rights to information and inspection a shareholder will have. Obviously, this issue is a matter of balancing competing interests. On the one hand, allowing a shareholder too much oversight can slow down the normal operation of the business and create other headaches for the personnel charged with actually running the corporation. On the other hand, shareholders, for obvious reasons, will want to have access to at least some information so that they can monitor how the company is performing and, if necessary, use whatever power granted to them by the articles or bylaws in order to make changes.
It is worth nothing, however, that both Delaware and MBCA corporate law does give shareholders the right to be allowed to access certain types of information related to their interest as shareholders. As a result, a shareholder agreement that restricts information beyond that point will not be valid.
Voting
Finally, a shareholder agreement ought to address any situations where a supermajority of shareholders, or even unanimous consent, will be required for a corporation to take action. For example, major outlays of capital, or entering into a new field of business are two activities that can radically reshape the contours of a business, and, to prevent lingering disputes, it might be better to require a supermajority or unanimous consent to make sure that there is a consensus among the major shareholders.
One problem with these sorts of agreements, however, is while the agreement can bind shareholders, they will not necessarily bind the directors of a corporation. For example, any shareholder agreement that would require the board of directors to get the approval of a supermajority of directors before acting will not be binding on the directors. A shareholder agreement can, however, bind the shareholders to approve an article or bylaw that would require the directors to get a supermajority or unanimous consent for a particular action.
Enforceability
One final issue is making sure that the shareholder agreement will be enforceable. In general, a validly executed shareholder agreement will be binding on the parties, but if the agreement is held to injure shareholders who have not signed the agreement, or third parties to the agreement, however, a court may rule that it is not enforceable.
Drafting a valid shareholder agreement can be a difficult proposition, and the use of an experienced commercial litigator is almost certainly necessary in such an effort. But they can be invaluable tools in avoiding the even greater costs that come from shareholder disputes.
One way to prevent shareholder disputes, or at least reduce their frequency, is to make sure that your company has a strong and well-crafted shareholder agreement that lays out the rights and responsibilities of the shareholders.
A shareholder agreement can fulfill a variety of roles for a corporation. It can supply the answers to such important questions as the transfer of shares, corporate organization and the enforceability of these provisions.
Transfer of shares
Given enough time, something is bound to happen that will cause a shareholder to leave the corporation, whether willingly or not. And, in many smaller corporations where there are only a few shareholders, that can cause a great deal of upheaval, as one person leaving can change the entire balance of power.
It is impossible, of course, to craft a solution to every possible contingency, and very few corporations are formed with a clear endgame in mind, but a shareholder wanting out of the business is almost an inevitability and should be anticipated. How will a corporation handle the transfer of shares? Can they be sold to an outside party? If not, then will they be bought back by the corporation? If they can be sold to an outside party, are there any limits to who they can be sold to, and will the buyer have the same voting rights the seller had? Will other shareholders have a right of first refusal on those shares? And how will the valuation of these shares be made? Will more stock be issued by the corporation? And, if so, will the current shareholders have pre-emptive rights to acquire that stock to prevent their shares from being diluted? Will there be a limit to how much stock one shareholder can hold? If so, how much will that be?
A good shareholder agreement will answer most, if not all, of these questions. The final factor to consider when drafting the portion of the shareholder agreement that corresponds to these issues is how they will interact with the corporate law of the jurisdiction where the incorporation has or will take place. For example, in both Delaware and Model Business Corporation Act jurisdictions, there are laws regulating agreements that deal with the transfer and valuation of stock, and any shareholder agreement that violates those laws will be found to be invalid.
Corporate organization
Another set of questions that a shareholder agreement should answer is how the company should be run. For example, who will be the directors of the corporation, and who will be the officers? Must they be shareholders? Even if those answers are obvious when the company is being formed, but down the line, circumstances might change so that the issues become muddled. Eventually, officers and directors will likely need to be replaced, and a good shareholder agreement will make that process as streamlined as possible.
The complicating factor in shareholder agreements dealing with the appointment of directors and officers, though, is that a shareholder agreement, by its definition, is an agreement between shareholders. It can only bind the parties who sign it. In many corporations, however, the shareholders are not the only ones who have power in a corporation, and a shareholder agreement will not bind officers and directors, and that can change how a shareholder agreement operates.
For example, a shareholder agreement may provide for the appointment of officers by the shareholders. Under Delaware law, however, the board of directors will still have the power to remove any officers appointed by the shareholders, and in some MBCA states, including
Access to the information
One other issue that a shareholder agreement should address is what rights to information and inspection a shareholder will have. Obviously, this issue is a matter of balancing competing interests. On the one hand, allowing a shareholder too much oversight can slow down the normal operation of the business and create other headaches for the personnel charged with actually running the corporation. On the other hand, shareholders, for obvious reasons, will want to have access to at least some information so that they can monitor how the company is performing and, if necessary, use whatever power granted to them by the articles or bylaws in order to make changes.
It is worth nothing, however, that both Delaware and MBCA corporate law does give shareholders the right to be allowed to access certain types of information related to their interest as shareholders. As a result, a shareholder agreement that restricts information beyond that point will not be valid.
Voting
Finally, a shareholder agreement ought to address any situations where a supermajority of shareholders, or even unanimous consent, will be required for a corporation to take action. For example, major outlays of capital, or entering into a new field of business are two activities that can radically reshape the contours of a business, and, to prevent lingering disputes, it might be better to require a supermajority or unanimous consent to make sure that there is a consensus among the major shareholders.
One problem with these sorts of agreements, however, is while the agreement can bind shareholders, they will not necessarily bind the directors of a corporation. For example, any shareholder agreement that would require the board of directors to get the approval of a supermajority of directors before acting will not be binding on the directors. A shareholder agreement can, however, bind the shareholders to approve an article or bylaw that would require the directors to get a supermajority or unanimous consent for a particular action.
Enforceability
One final issue is making sure that the shareholder agreement will be enforceable. In general, a validly executed shareholder agreement will be binding on the parties, but if the agreement is held to injure shareholders who have not signed the agreement, or third parties to the agreement, however, a court may rule that it is not enforceable.
Drafting a valid shareholder agreement can be a difficult proposition, and the use of an experienced commercial litigator is almost certainly necessary in such an effort. But they can be invaluable tools in avoiding the even greater costs that come from shareholder disputes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250