![]() ![]() Decisions from the highest authority concentrate the minds of the management of the joint venture, making it more likely that they will find a solution for themselves.Provision can be made for the referral of deadlocks to the chairmen or chief executives of the respective joint venture parties. An arbitrator's decision can be binding despite the fact that it is not a desirable result for either party.Not generally appropriate for business disputes, as third parties usually have insufficient knowledge of the joint venture business.Has the advantage of privacy of proceedings.Has been shown to work well for legal or technical disputes.Can preclude injunctions being obtained but is normally more expeditious than court proceedings.This could be an expert in the relevant field, a mediator or an arbitrator. Provision can be made for any dispute or deadlock to be referred to an independent third party. Reference to mediation/arbitration/expert There are, however, ways to mitigate the risk of any disagreement as to the appointment of a third party, whereby he or she is appointed by an approved professional body or organisation. It may be difficult for the parties to find a candidate who is acceptable to both parties.Both parties need to be satisfied that the third party is a suitable person with appropriate business expertise.One way of mitigating this is to alternate the appointment of the chairman (with a casting vote) between the parties, perhaps on a yearly basis.Ī third party can be given a "swing vote" on behalf of the joint venture in a deadlock scenario. Gives one party an advantage, negating the concept of common control and therefore may not be acceptable to the other 50 per cent shareholder.The view of a party involved in the deadlock will prevail (i.e.There will be a swift resolution of deadlock.Mechanisms enabling the joint venture to continue Chairman's casting voteĪ chairman can be given a casting vote in a deadlock scenario. "divorce" mechanisms, which accept that the deadlock is irreconcilable and provide a method by which the joint venture terminates.mechanisms enabling the joint venture to continue and.Given the practical difficulties and expense in obtaining court judgments, we would normally recommend the inclusion of deadlock resolution provisions in a company's constitutional documents.īelow we set out some popular resolution mechanisms which can be employed when joint venture shareholders reach deadlock. In the absence of specific provisions in a company's constitutional documents dealing with deadlock scenarios, the main remedy available to a shareholder would be to seek redress through the courts. This can have the unfortunate effect of paralysing a company's operations. During the preparation of various cash flow forecasts and business growth charts, often inadequate thought is given to the future possibility of a corporate deadlock.Ī deadlock usually arises in a 50:50 joint venture, where each shareholder owns 50 per cent of a company and the parties are unable to reach a decision on a matter of significance for the company. ![]() ![]() Parties typically enter into business with ambitions to promote growth opportunities, pool resources and, ultimately, increase shareholder return. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |