← University
Shareholder Agreements: What They Do and Why You Need One
0 of 6

A private software development company incorporated in Canada operates with 3 shareholders who founded the business together 7 years ago. The founding arrangement allocated shares in unequal proportions: 1 shareholder holds 50 percent of the issued shares, a 2nd shareholder holds 35 percent, and the 3rd shareholder holds the remaining 15 percent. At incorporation, the founders executed a brief shareholder agreement drafted without legal assistance, consisting of 4 pages that addressed little beyond initial capital contributions and a vague commitment to operate the business cooperatively. The document contains no provisions governing decision-making procedures when the shareholders disagree, no restrictions on the transfer of shares to outside parties, and no mechanism for valuing or purchasing shares if any shareholder wishes to exit the corporation.

The company grew steadily over its first 5 years, generating consistent revenue from government and enterprise clients seeking custom software solutions. During this period, the shareholders operated harmoniously, making decisions by informal consensus and reinvesting profits into expansion. The absence of detailed governance provisions in their agreement caused no apparent difficulty while relationships remained collegial and business objectives aligned. The shareholders never revisited the original document or sought legal advice about what might happen if their circumstances changed.

The current difficulty arose 8 months ago when the minority shareholder announced an intention to leave the business. A career opportunity in another province prompted the decision, and the departing shareholder expected to sell the 15 percent stake back to the corporation or to the remaining shareholders at a fair price reflecting 7 years of growth. The majority shareholder and the mid-level shareholder responded with competing positions about what that price should be, how the valuation should be conducted, and whether any obligation to purchase the shares existed at all. The minority shareholder then received an unsolicited offer from an outside investor willing to purchase the 15 percent stake, a prospect that alarmed the 2 continuing shareholders who had no desire to share ownership with a stranger.

The corporation's constating documents and the existing shareholder agreement offer no guidance on any of these questions. No right of first refusal restricts the minority shareholder's ability to sell to a third party. No buy-sell provision establishes a purchase mechanism. No shotgun clause provides a path through the impasse. No governance provision addresses what happens when decisions about share transfers cannot be reached by consensus. The 3 shareholders now face the consequences of having built a successful enterprise on an inadequate contractual foundation, and each must determine what rights and obligations actually govern their situation under Canadian corporate law.

What a Shareholder Agreement Does and Why the Corporate Legislation Is Not Enough

A shareholder agreement is a private contract among the owners of a corporation that governs their relationship with each other and, often, their relationship with the corporation itself. It exists because the default rules found in corporate legislation across Canada, while comprehensive in many respects, were never designed to address the full range of circumstances that arise when multiple individuals invest capital, time, and expertise into a shared business venture. The statutory framework establishes the bare minimum requirements for how corporations must operate, but it leaves vast territory uncovered, territory that becomes critically important the moment shareholders find themselves in disagreement, facing unexpected life events, or contemplating an exit from the business they helped build.

In Canada, corporations are creatures of statute. A business may be incorporated federally under the Canada Business Corporations Act or provincially under legislation specific to each jurisdiction. The Business Corporations Act governs incorporations in British Columbia, while the Business Corporations Act in Alberta serves the same function in that province. Saskatchewan has its own Business Corporations Act, as does Ontario, where the Business Corporations Act has governed corporate affairs for decades. In Quebec, the Business Corporations Act creates the framework for Quebec corporations, though the Civil Code of Quebec provides an underlying foundation that influences how contractual relationships, including shareholder agreements, are interpreted and enforced. As of the date of authorship, each of these statutes provides default rules about matters such as how directors are elected, how dividends are declared, what happens when a shareholder dies, and how fundamental corporate changes require approval. Yet these default rules operate as precisely that: defaults. They represent what will happen if the shareholders have not agreed to something different.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.