2 ms·
This is a clause you have to be very careful with. I know of a case where Partner B made an offer to sell his shares at a low price in order to get Partner A's
by electromagnetic 17y ago
This is a clause you have to be very careful with. I know of a case where Partner B made an offer to sell his shares at a low price in order to get Partner A's shares at a low price, what he didn't consider was that Partner A (who travels a lot, and whom was expected to spend a lot) actually had almost $200K in the bank and took the offer. Partner B had to beg and grovel to get the deal dumped.
Partner A needed a partner at the time more than he needed control of the company, so B got extremely lucky.
- DenisM 17y agoThat's the whole point of the clause - the threat of counteroffer is there to prevent low-baling. On a related note, A should should have kicked B out - or B will eventually find another way to take advantage of A.
- electromagnetic 17y agoA really should have but, with no children and he's already on retirement, I believe B would be getting the company anyway as they are old friends (this happened during a dispute). I believe they do have a clause in their agreement that should one of them pass on the remaining partner can buy out the others shares, opposed to them passing on to spouses.