Ambiguity in Shareholder Agreements - what you need to know
When the debate comes as to the value of shareholdings many shareholders agreements provide very little assistance.
I just reviewed a valuation clause in an existing shareholder’s agreement for a company.
In summary the shareholders agreement sets out the following:
- If the members or respective buyer and seller cannot agree value, the Company’s accountant must determine it on the request of any member, the value being the greater of:
- The value of the Company in accordance with its balance sheet at the relevant time and without any updating of assets values for that purpose; and
- The value of the Company by valuing it on a multiple of the average earnings of the Company before interest and tax for the last 3 years, where the multiple is determined by 2 valuers as agreed between the respective parties.
- The deed then goes on and sets out how to appoint the 2 valuers and if the 2 valuers cannot agree on a multiple then it is to be the average
- Finally the deed states that the valuation will be binding on the parties affected by it
The background of this assignment is that one of the minority shareholders is going through a marital split and his minority shareholding needs to be valued for family law purposes. And so now what??
Clearly the methodology as set out in the shareholders agreement is not binding in relation to a family law valuation but can and should be used as a guide for the independent family law valuer. Let’s assume that in this instance the husband will retain his shareholding and pay his ex-wife out in cash. It is then equitable that the valuation for family law purposes be valued on the same basis as if one of the husband’s business partners were to pay him out, after all, based on current circumstances, this is what the husband is likely to get for his shares into the future.
However the above gives no guidance for the family law valuer if for no other reason than there is no agreed multiple. Additionally the family law valuer will not be bound in his valuation approach. For example, he may decide not to value the business based on average earnings over the last 3 years, he may take into account future events. This likely leads to the family law valuer coming up with a different value than if one of the husband’s business partners were to buy him out, which in turn may lead to an additional legal fight and costs, and of the husband overpaying or underpaying his ex-wife when it all pans out.
The solution is the more specific the valuation clause in shareholders agreements the better. I believe the valuation clauses in shareholders agreements should refer to an annexed schedule which is an agreed worked example of the business valuation. This worked example should stipulate the process for arriving at maintainable earnings and should stipulate the agreed multiple. This annexed worked example can then be revised and if agreed amended by all shareholders in agreement allowing for changes in business circumstances. Much better to know where you stand up front and as much as possible take away the ambiguity. This would then in turn give concrete guidance to in this example the family law valuer.
Columnist: Ross Mottershead
Wednesday, 05 August 2015
accountantsdaily.com.au
Hot Issues
- FBT Reminder – Odometer Reading
- ATO’s debts on hold campaign prompts new IGTO guidance
- A comprehensive collection of small business benchmarks
- The 2025 Financial Year tax & super changes you need to know!
- Underperforming employees: When can you terminate?
- A comprehensive list of guides to industry specific tax deductions.
- ‘Renewed concerns’ about economy sees consumer sentiment dip: Westpac
- Oldest Buildings in the World.
- Small businesses may ‘collapse under strain of payday super’, IPA warns
- ATO’s hands tied with scrapping on-hold debts, expert says
- What Drives Your Business Growth and Profits?
- Australian Taxation Office (ATO) shifting to firmer debt collection activity
- Why employee v contractor comes down to fine print
- Sharing economy reporting regime for platform operators
- Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
- Illegal access nets $637 million
- Accessing superannuation benefits.
- Does your business have a company Power of Attorney?
- Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
- GrantConnect
- 2 in 3 SMEs benefit from instant asset write-off, survey reveals
- Updated guidance on R&D claims
- Do you know how to recover debts?
- Wheat Production by Country
- Types of small business benchmarks
- Vimeo test
Article archive
- January - March 2024
- October - December 2023
- July - September 2023
- April - June 2023
- January - March 2023
- October - December 2022
- July - September 2022
- April - June 2022
- January - March 2022
- October - December 2021
- July - September 2021
- April - June 2021
- January - March 2021
- October - December 2020
- July - September 2020
- April - June 2020
- January - March 2020
- October - December 2019
- July - September 2019
- April - June 2019
- January - March 2019
- October - December 2018
- July - September 2018
- April - June 2018
- January - March 2018
- October - December 2017
- July - September 2017
- April - June 2017
- January - March 2017
- October - December 2016
- July - September 2016
- April - June 2016
- January - March 2016
- October - December 2015
- July - September 2015
- April - June 2015
- January - March 2015
- October - December 2014
July - September 2015 archive
- Individual Tax Returns – Medical Expenses 2015
- Retirement Planning becoming more difficult
- Salary and Superannuation after the death of an employee
- Ambiguity in Shareholder Agreements - what you need to know
- Five reasons the RBA will likely cut rates again
- Consistency between Income Tax and Business Activity Statements (BAS)
- Tax Time Checklist - Individual - 2015
- Tax Time Checklist - Company Trust or Partnerships - 2015
- Tax Time Checklist - Superannuation Funds - 2015
What our clients say about us