Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Family private Co. dispute windup procedure?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

no.to...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 18, 2015, 7:31:01 PM12/18/15
to
> "Unknown" <j...@something.com> wrote in message
> news:n4upch$6dq$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Commonly, disputes in a small family held company, are resolved by a
>> winding-up order.
>>
>> Surely it's not for the majority controllers to do their own
>> winding-up, and transfer the assets to their own back-pocket company.
>>
>> I would expect the winding up to be controlled/supervised by the state;
>> like a will is executed in a controlled manner.
>
> The execution of a will, and the administration of a will, is not
> controlled/supervised by the state. It's a private matter,
> controlled/supervised by those properly entitled to the estate and by
> the executor. There is one step, probate, where the state is involved,
> but it's not mandatory in the sense that it is required by law. A court
> used to do probate, but it's now done by the executive government. All
> it means is that an independent authority says that it looks like the
> will was duly executed, with certain legal consequences for the
> subsequent administration of the estate. There is no further control or
> supervision by the probate authority. Any dispute between the parties
> involved can be raised in a court in the usual way.
>
>> How does it work?
>> Eg. to ensure that the major assets are sold at market related prices
>> and the residual is distributed to the shareholders pro-rata.
>
> A winding-up order can be sought from the court to resolve a dispute in
> a small family held company. It is used where the dispute (a private
> matter) can't be resolved between the parties by negotiation. The court
> will manage the winding-up.

How will the court "manage the winding-up"?
Where is the applicable legislation/rules, that I can read?
The matter originates from a step child conflict, where the majority tried
to force the 20% holder to sell his shares at 16% of the 2010
auction-tested price: an office building property.

Now the 80% 4 siblings say "we're selling the property, but not the company
[with an arrangement to keep mamaging it, for 1 year] don't worry, you'll
get your 20% of the price".

What's to stop them from selling the property to their own separate company,
at a below market price?

==TIA

0 new messages