Measures of Last Resort – The Benefits of Exit Provisions in Shareholder’s Agreements

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Closely-Held Business Disputes, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Corporate Disputes, Family Business Disputes, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Non-Solicitation Agreement, Non-Solicitation Clause, Oppression Remedies, Sale of Business Disputes, Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

The benefits of a shareholder’s agreement may not be fully considered when parties are intending to go into business together and become joint shareholders in a corporation. Perhaps the mood is optimistic and none of the participants anticipate that things might sour between them down the road. Sometimes corporations are formed absent such an agreement. However, among other benefits, these agreements become particularly useful in managing risk and guiding shareholders through governance issues and disputes that may arise, efficiently so as to minimize disruption to the corporation’s business. Absent a shareholder’s agreement, shareholders in a closely held corporation that cannot see eye-to-eye regarding the operation and path of the corporation, may become stuck in a deadlock where decision-making is effectively stifled due to a stalemate between them. Shareholder’s agreements can serve to provide mechanisms to address deadlock, protect the voice and rights of minority shareholders, provide a road map for … Read More

Court of Appeal States that Placing Oneself in Position to Close Transaction not Waiver of Deficiency

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Law, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation, Sale of Business Disputes0 Comments

In 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, the appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to buy a property from the respondent.  The property included residential apartments.  The appellant sought confirmation from the respondent that the residential apartments were permitted use under the existing zoning by-law.  The respondent maintained that the residential apartments were “a legal non-conforming use”.  However, the planning authority indicated that there was a possible problem with the residential apartments.  The appellant’s lawyer advised the respondent’s lawyer that the purchase deposits had to be returned if the issue was not resolved. In spite of the residential apartments issue, the appellant and respondent moved towards the closing date by exchanging draft documentation and related material.  However, on closing date, the appellant’s lawyer advised the respondent’s lawyer that the appellant would not be closing because of the residential apartments issue.  The deal did … Read More