• Tiếng Việt
  • English
Deadlock Clause In Shareholders Agreement

Due to the limited number of clause types and the complexity of selecting vouchers for your business, it is recommended that you be assisted by a lawyer before deciding which clause(s) should be included in your shareholders` agreement. Shareholder disputes can jeopardize the sustainability of companies, especially in the case of 50/50 joint ventures. Below you will find an overview of company law instruments to avoid or overcome feared deadlock situations. A large number of different variants or combinations are possible. Another variant in practice is, for example, the (reverse) case in which the offering shareholder does not make an offer to buy the other party`s stake in the company, but offers the other party – as in the basic model of the Russian roulette clause – to buy his own shares. The other shareholder will then have the choice of accepting the offer or res submitting an offer to acquire its own shares. In this variant, the offer also varies from front to back and ends with the maximum offer. To resolve an “impasse”, shareholders follow a procedure defined in their shareholders` agreement (the Deadlock clause). Voting rights are generally based on the proportional holding of shares. In a company with 100 shares, a shareholder of 50 shares can therefore exceed one of the other two, each holding 25 shares. The two minority shareholders can, however, create an impasse by voting together against the majority. The functionalities of common termination clauses as well as the requirements for their effectiveness are presented below in an overview. This clause imposes liquidation in the event of a blockage.

The shareholders participate equally in the costs and expenses related to the liquidation of the company. This solution usually occurs when the problem is at an impasse over a significant period of time. This clause is only appropriate in serious situations in which the company is on the right track. A good Disposition of Deadlock usually consists of two parts: this clause obliges all shareholders to make a sealed offer to purchase the shares of the other shareholder. All offers are forwarded to third parties who must decide which offer is the most “fair”. The fairest offer is the one that must be accepted. This solution generally imposes the exit of a certain number of shareholders and favours shareholders who are in a stronger financial position. This clause allows one or more security holders to purchase the other securities at an agreed price, but also allows the others to purchase the bidder at the same price. If no one agrees to sell at this price, this provision intensifies to allow counter-offers until a price is agreed for the purchase of a security holder. . . .