“It’s our family company — but apparently I’m no longer part of the family.”
Disputes between shareholders are difficult enough. When the shareholders are also siblings or other family members, disagreements about money, management and company control can quickly become deeply personal.
A particularly difficult situation can arise where a shareholder continues to own a substantial interest in a successful family company but finds themselves excluded from management, deprived of dividends and unable to realise the value of their shares.
In certain circumstances, conduct of this kind may give rise to a claim for minority shareholder oppression under Section 212 of the Companies Act 2014.
Consider the following scenario.
Three siblings inherit equal shares in a successful Irish distribution company established by their father. Each owns approximately one-third of the company.
For a period, all three siblings are involved in the family business.
Following a serious breakdown in the family relationship, one sibling is removed from the day-to-day management of the company. The other two siblings remain actively involved and effectively control how the business is operated.
Over the following two years, a number of significant changes occur.
The two working siblings substantially increase their salaries and remuneration. Their children are employed by the company. Dividend payments to shareholders cease.
At the same time, the third sibling is increasingly excluded from meaningful information about the company’s financial performance and affairs.
The excluded sibling remains the legal owner of one-third of what appears to be a valuable and profitable business. However, the shares produce no income and there is no realistic external market in which to sell a minority interest in a private family company.
Eventually, the majority shareholders offer €250,000 to purchase the minority shareholder’s interest.
The minority shareholder obtains independent accounting advice suggesting that the shares may instead be worth closer to €800,000.
The response from the other shareholders is uncompromising:
“Take the €250,000 or stay as a shareholder. We’re not paying you anything else.”
A family disagreement has now developed into a potentially significant shareholder dispute.
Section 212 of the Companies Act 2014 provides an important potential remedy for shareholders where the affairs of a company are being conducted, or directors’ powers are being exercised, in a manner oppressive to a shareholder or in disregard of their interests as a shareholder.
This can be particularly important in private companies and family-owned businesses, where a minority shareholder may have little practical ability to sell their shares if relations between the shareholders break down.
The court’s examination will be highly fact-specific.
The question is not simply whether the parties have fallen out or whether the minority shareholder is unhappy with particular business decisions.
Instead, it may be necessary to examine the overall manner in which the company’s affairs have been conducted and whether the conduct complained of amounts to oppression or disregard of the shareholder’s interests within the meaning of Section 212.
In a minority shareholder oppression claim, the court may need to consider a range of conduct.
In this scenario, potentially important issues could include:
No single factor necessarily determines whether oppression has occurred.
The court may need to consider the commercial reality of the relationship between the shareholders as a whole.
Exclusion from management can be particularly contentious in a family-owned company.
The legal position may depend on considerably more than the company’s constitution or the percentage of shares held by each family member.
Questions can arise about the basis on which the business was established or inherited.
Was there an understanding that all three siblings would participate in management?
Was share ownership connected with employment in the business?
Had all shareholders historically received dividends?
What representations or understandings existed when the shares were transferred to the next generation?
How had salaries, profits and benefits traditionally been divided?
These issues can become extremely important when a family business dispute reaches litigation.
The absence of a dividend does not automatically establish shareholder oppression.
Companies may have legitimate commercial reasons for retaining profits rather than distributing them.
However, the wider circumstances matter.
Suppose dividends cease at the same time that the shareholders controlling the company substantially increase their own salaries, pensions, benefits or other remuneration.
The economic effect may be that those actively controlling the company continue receiving substantial financial benefits while the excluded shareholder receives nothing.
That distinction can become highly relevant in a shareholder oppression dispute.
The company’s accounts, management accounts, payroll information, directors’ remuneration and previous dividend history may therefore become important evidence.
Valuation is often one of the most commercially important issues in a minority shareholder dispute.
Assume the company itself is valuable but there is effectively no external market for a one-third shareholding.
The majority shareholders offer €250,000.
The minority shareholder’s expert values the interest at approximately €800,000.
The difference is substantial.
If the dispute results in an order or negotiated agreement for the minority shareholder’s shares to be purchased, an important issue may be how those shares should be valued.
One particularly significant question can be whether a minority discount should apply.
In an ordinary commercial sale, a minority shareholding may sometimes be valued at a discount because it does not provide control of the company.
But a shareholder oppression dispute can raise a very different question:
Should the controlling shareholders be entitled to acquire the minority shareholder’s interest at a discounted value where their own conduct has contributed to the circumstances requiring the minority shareholder to exit?
The answer can have an enormous impact on the eventual value of a shareholder buyout.
Independent expert valuation evidence may therefore be central to resolving the dispute.
Section 212 gives the court significant remedial powers where the statutory requirements are established.
Depending on the circumstances, the relief sought may include an order addressing the conduct of the company’s affairs or requiring shares to be purchased.
For many shareholders, a buyout of the minority shareholding at an appropriate value may ultimately provide the most commercially workable solution.
However, litigation is not always the only route.
Where possible, early legal advice, negotiation, mediation or a structured shareholder buyout can sometimes resolve the dispute before positions become entrenched and significant legal and expert costs are incurred.
One of the most important lessons from disputes involving family companies is that the formal legal documents may not tell the whole story.
Relevant evidence can extend back many years and may include:
In family companies, informal arrangements can continue for years without difficulty.
It is often only when relationships deteriorate that the absence of clearly documented arrangements becomes a serious problem.
Family relationships are not a substitute for proper corporate governance.
When shares in a family company pass from one generation to another, the family should consider documenting how the business will operate before disagreements arise.
A properly drafted shareholders’ agreement can address matters including management participation, directors’ remuneration, dividend policy, employment of family members, access to information, transfers of shares, valuation, retirement, death, incapacity, deadlock and dispute resolution.
For existing minority shareholders, prolonged exclusion should not simply be ignored.
If you are being denied information, excluded from management, receiving no dividends while other shareholders obtain significant financial benefits, or being pressured to sell your shares substantially below what you believe they are worth, it may be important to obtain advice on your rights at an early stage.
Sherwin O’Riordan Solicitors advises shareholders, directors, companies and family-owned businesses in Dublin and throughout Ireland on complex shareholder disputes.
Our work includes disputes concerning minority shareholder oppression, Section 212 Companies Act 2014 claims, family business disputes, shareholder exits and buyouts, company control, directors’ duties, shareholder agreements and the valuation of shares in private companies.
These disputes frequently involve both significant commercial value and longstanding personal relationships. A clear strategy from the outset can be critical to protecting the shareholder’s position while identifying the most commercially effective route to resolution.
If you are concerned about minority shareholder oppression or a dispute within a family-owned company, obtaining legal advice before accepting a buyout proposal or taking further action can be particularly important.
If you would like an immediate call back to discuss any queries, just fill in your details below. All correspondence is treated as confidential.
