In addition, a buy-sell contract can (and should) promote the following: despite the significant benefits of a shareholders` agreement, entrepreneurial families too often neglect them and unknowingly endanger their business by not having one. Family entrepreneurs without a partner`s contract benefit from the overview of this article. But family entrepreneurs who already have some form of shareholders` agreement are not exempt from examining this need. Like any other business contract, a one-size-fits-all contract doesn`t suit everyone or last forever. These families would be well advised to regularly review their current agreement to ensure that it is up to date and still meets their development goals. In particular, when families are approaching a generational change, the next generation should evaluate their shareholders` agreement and consider whether the conditions match their reality, rather than inheriting those of the previous generation, which might not reflect their worldview. In most cases, the buy-sell language is either included in the company/partnership/shareholder agreement or in a separate buy-sell agreement. A well-developed buy-sell contract can go a long way in ensuring the generational longevity of a family business and can also help protect the family. Regularly implementing and updating a buy-sell contract is a smart practice for family entrepreneurs and can offer security for the future. `When assessing the use of a formula defined in a purchase-sale contract, the court of justice (1) should take into account the proximity of the date of the agreement to the date of separation in order to ensure that the agreement was not concluded taking into account the termination of the marriage; (2) the existence of an independent reason for the conclusion of the purchase-sale contract, such as. B the wish to protect all members against the effects of a dissolution of the company; and (3) whether the value resulting from the purchase price formula of the contract is similar to that of other approaches. In this case, the Court of Justice found that the company had an independent reason for concluding the sales contract and that there was no evidence that the share purchase agreement – signed by the husband about eight years before the parties separated – was intended to deprive the shareholders` spouses of any rights.

. . .