Eastenders - Current Episode Discussion - VIII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dazzle

I was thinking exactly the same thing but I don't know anything about business. Can partners force out another partner? We don't even know what percentage Shirley owns (as far as I'm aware).

---

Not sure - but must depend on how original
contract written- could be clause to say if
one partner wishes to sell their share the
other(s) have first chance and how share is
valued.

Whichever partner has greatest share will
usually have final say in any business decisions.
Which is why when someone who has been
sole proprietor sells part of the business
or(eg gives a share to a family member) they
ensure they retain at least 51%

There might be clause restricting to whom
shares of business could be sold in future or
original.owner may have first right to re-purchase.

Contract needs to be very carefully written! and
as you say we-the viewers- dont know the finer
points of the original contract in this case??
So will probably be written to suit current
storyline!!

Dupl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maidmarian

Whichever partner has greatest share will
usually have final say in any business decisions.

---

That does sound like Mick and Linda could force Shirley out then. As you say, the finer details will change the suit the storyline!

The majority share owner can decide how the business is ran but they cannot force a minor shareholder to sell up. Mick and Linda can run the pub but they cant force Shirley to sell if she doesnt want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dazzle

That does sound like Mick and Linda could force Shirley out then. As you say, the finer details will change the suit the storyline!

---

They can decide direction of business etc but
dont think.they could force sale -as long as
she had abided by her conditions in contract.
Unless there was a clause that said eg if the
majority shares which to sell the others
must comply ( which might be doubtful that
the minors would sign such a contract )

Thats why when people sign a contract each
party needs their own independent solictor
to look.for loop holes that put them at a
disadvantage. And where legal profession
makes a lot of fees.

But no one has seen this contract ???

Dupl

I agree with Dan. However, even if there is a clause that says the majority shareholder can buy out other shareholders there must also be something about how much that would cost. If Shirley can just arbitrarily put the price up by 20% then she could put it up by 100% or more and make it impossible anyway.

shirley and mick both names were over the door as licencee so i thought equal share 50 50

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parkerman

I agree with Dan. However, even if there is a clause that says the majority shareholder can buy out other shareholders there must also be something about how much that would cost. If Shirley can just arbitrarily put the price up by 20% then she could put it up by 100% or more and make it impossible anyway.

---

Yes-there would have to be a clause
to say it could happen AND it should
have to.say how it would be valued
( cant just pick a price at random)**
It should specify a lot of things but
would it? We are in a place that has
"dodgy briefs".
I did put about valuing in earlier post.
( unless it was a sloppy solictor or none-
which was one of my main points)


I suppose how ever legal the forum
gets - in the end the story inc contract-
will be written to suit the desired end.

**Or can you if its a badly written contract?
wasnt specific enough and left loopholes
Could sue solictor for negligence ??

Dupl