This agreement contains questions relating to the management of the company and the relationship between shareholders (for example.B. The right to appoint directors, matters requiring the agreement of directors appointed by the investor, the provision of financial information, confidentiality rules, etc.). Think about the need for a shareholder pact – in some cases, a shareholders` pact is not necessary, as the company`s basic requirements may be included in the statutes (e.g.B. pre-emption rights and tag rights along and drag-along). This version is designed for a situation in which a single shareholder controls (and probably daily) the business of the company. The introduction of minority shareholders is planned, but the largest shareholder remains under control. The use of a shareholder pact is one of the most effective ways to do so. This shareholders` pact was drawn up to contain the provisions that a large professional or institutional investor, such as a business angel, venture capital or private equity investor, would need to protect its New Zealand investments. It is a simple shareholder pact available to small and medium-sized growth companies. “I found Net Lawman perfect for my needs, and I saved thousands of dollars in legal fees to get a lawyer to replicate these Doucs from scratch. I used three of Net Lawman Docs to write wholesale the NDA, contract, not solicitation of agreements at a level of 95% and then sign my lawyer.
My lawyer has even commented on how complete these documents are. Thanks guys, great service/product. Cheers Dean” This model should not only help you establish the strategic management structure you need to grow your business, but also ensure that your investment is protected if you or other owners decide to sell. A comprehensive shareholder agreement for an existing New Zealand company that also has external financing from a large lender such as a business angel or venture capitalist. The good news is that even if your business is already operational, it`s not too late to enter into a shareholder contract. As you can see in the Susan/Nancy situation, a shareholder pact can be invaluable for every company, regardless of size or industry. It doesn`t need to be complex and can be adapted to your company`s specific situation. It is just like those who enter a `pre-nup` relationship property, it can pay to set rules in advance. Siblings Nancy and Benjamin Button each own 50% of Button Enterprises Limited (BEL); they are the managers of the company.
There was no Constitution or shareholder pact. Over the years, they have successfully run their business. Her only problem was the bad relationship between Nancy and Benjamin`s new wife, Susan. This shareholders` pact governs an individual company or a structured project through a New Zealand company. Susan and Nancy`s relationship quickly grew – Nancy often failed to convince Susan to sign a “special resolution” necessary for a company to complete a “big deal” (the 1993 Companies Act requires at least 75% of shareholders to approve major transactions). As a result, BEL`s profitability and shareholder working relationship have suffered. Of course, one or more shareholders who control more than 50% of the voting shares still control each company. This agreement reinforces this position. A shareholder pact would have helped in the Susan/Nancy situation. It would have improved her working relationship and given Nancy more security after Benjamin`s death. The corresponding clauses that would have helped the following case study illustrate some of the benefits of a shareholder pact. Dispute resolution provisions would include normal mediation and arbitration clauses, but in circumstances where shareholders simply cannot continue together, there is a “Russian roulette” or “gun-fire” clause (each party presents a price for the other`s shares and the party with the highest price, and then the shares of the other to that pre-