Reinier advises national and international companies
reinier.russell@russell.nl +31 20 301 55 55In the event of a conflict, shareholders may demand that a co-shareholder be compulsorily required to transfer his shares, also referred to as a buy-out. When is this forced transfer of shares allowed and how should it be arranged?
In the event of a conflict, a shareholder may significantly impede the company by blocking the adoption of decisions by the shareholders’ meeting, for instance, on a takeover or applying for a major loan necessary for the continuation or expansion of the company. In such cases the other shareholders can claim in court that the shareholder blocking the decision-making process has to transfer his shares. Shareholders can only institute such proceedings if they hold at least one third of the company shares.
The functioning of the company must be jeopardized if there is to be a good reason for a forced transfer of shares. There does not need to be a risk of the company going under. However, there must be a structural deadlock in the company’s decision-making process. Such as, for instance, a shareholder who deliberately obstructs decisions, which may have major consequences for the company. If the articles of association of a company contain a regulation for the resolution of conflicts between shareholders, this path has to be followed first.
Misconduct on the part of the shareholder which has nothing to do with the performance of his function as a shareholder cannot result in a forced transfer of shares in the squeeze-out procedure. Even if the conduct is detrimental to the reputation of the company, but not directly related to the functioning of the shareholder within the company, it will usually not result in a successful squeeze-out procedure.
If the court grants the claim to forced sale of the shares, the price of the shares must be determined. The starting point here is the value at the time the decision becomes irrevocable. The court will be advised by experts with regard to the determination of the price. This may take some time. A squeeze-out procedure does therefore not offer a quick solution to a conflict, but is a big stick in negotiations with shareholders.
Do you have a conflict with one of your co-shareholders? Does the co-shareholder act detrimental to the company? We will be happy to assist you with legal advice and, if necessary, legal proceedings to achieve a transfer of shares. Please contact us:
The majority shareholder and the board turn the company into an empty shell. How can you as a minority shareholder defend yourself against decisions that are detrimental to you?
On 16 December 2025, the House of Representatives of the Netherlands adopted the Digital General Meeting for Private Law Legal Entities Act. This Act makes it possible to hold general meetings entirely digitally. What does this mean for directors and shareholders of private limited companies, public limited companies and other legal entities?
When can directors be held personally liable? What can directors do to prevent being held personally liable?
The Transparency and Countering Undermining by Civil Society Organisations Act (Wtmo) imposes a number of new obligations on charities in the Netherlands. What are these? What measures should non-profit organisations take as a result?
Managing a nonprofit organization requires not only idealism and dedication, but also a sensible approach to legal opportunities and risks. This ensures that the charity is future-proof. What are the important issues that need to be properly addressed?
An earn-out in the event of a company takeover offers opportunities and risks. The former director and major shareholder remains involved in the company and part of the purchase price remains dependent on future performance. What aspects are important here?
