2.9.2014

A Well-Functioning Shareholders’ Agreement for a Startup 2/2

In our previous post, we presented the first two of certain fundamental matters that need to be considered when preparing the shareholders’ agreement (SHA) for a startup. In this part, we will concentrate on exit and leaver situations and introduce a few essential clauses to ensure that you are ready for these changes.  

The ‘Leaver’ Situations

Every startup comes to a point where the honeymoon is over and some of the founders wish to find a ‘real job’ and leave the company. Also, as the business grows, the administration might need some reassessing. If the founders have their background in, say, engineering, they perhaps no longer have sufficient competence for managing the company alone.

The SHA should include provisions on what will happen if someone neglects their working obligation or other material provision of the SHA, or if a shareholder leaves the company. Under these kinds of circumstances, you want to avoid a situation where one of the shareholders quits their job straight after setting up a startup but still retains the right to their shares, the decision-making rights and the right to the dividends and proceeds those shares may entitle them to in the future.

As a precaution for a breach of working obligations, a contractual penalty clause is a must in the SHA. Another practical method is to agree that the other shareholders will have the right to redeem the shares of the breaching shareholder, e.g., on a predetermined price.

When drafting the terms concerning shareholders who leave the company, the concept of ‘leavers’ is useful. The company may, for example, terminate an employment relationship due to gross misconduct or dishonesty pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act, other legislation or an employment contract. This is a case of bad leaver. On the other hand, the termination may have been decided in consensus or due to grounds beyond the parties’ control, which constitutes a case of good leaver. In both situations, the other shareholders should have the right to redeem the shares of the leaving shareholder. However, a good leaver should receive the market price for their shares, whilst the price paid to a bad leaver tends to be heavily discounted.

Transfer of Equity Securities and Exit

To control the acceptance of new shareholders in your company, you should consider setting restrictions on the transfer of shares. Share restrictions are also commonly used to favour the existing shareholders. For instance, the existing shareholders should have a primary right to buy new shares issued by the company before they are offered to the public (pre-emptive right) or to buy shares that one of the shareholders has offered to sell (right of first refusal). In the latter option, a shareholder having received an offer from a third party must notify the other shareholders of the price and the other terms and conditions of the offer, allowing the existing shareholders to buy the shares first.

Other significant clauses in the SHA are drag-along and tag-along rights. The drag-along right applies when the majority of the shareholders wish to sell their shares or the business of the company. Based on this right, if the shareholders receive an offer that becomes accepted by the majority, the rest of the shareholders are forced to drag along and join the deal. Tag-along rights, on the other hand, mean that if the majority of the shareholders decide to sell their shares, the minority shareholders have the right to join the deal (tag along) on the same terms and conditions. The tag-along right is important especially for investors, who have, in the first place, invested in the principal business and do not wish to continue investing in the new owners.

Finally, it is extremely important that all the shareholders agree on when, how and for what price the business should be sold one day. These conditions should also be clearly stated in the SHA.

Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Clauses

Last but definitely not least, the SHA should include terms on confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation. These clauses can rightly be called the life insurance of a startup, and they exist to prevent serious damage to the company and its business.

The confidentiality clause protects all technical, financial, commercial and other information of the company that should not be disclosed. In turn, the non-competition clause forbids any secondary occupations that may compete or conflict with the company’s business. The non-competition clause must be reasonable and fair but comprehensive to protect the core business. The non-solicitation clause is closely related to the non-competition clause, as it prohibits shareholders from persuading the employees of the company (typically, the best programmers) to get involved in new, competing businesses.

All these restrictions should remain in effect for some time after the shareholder has left the company, regardless of the reason of leaving. Some investors, however, are allowed to have many portfolios in different businesses, also in businesses that are actually competing with each other. This may leave them in an exceptional position in which non-competition clauses do not apply. However, confidentiality clauses naturally do.

Conclusion

With a well-drafted SHA, you will be able to solve severe problems well ahead, even before they actually arise. Our advice is that the first thing to do when starting your company is to sit around a table with your co-founders and think these issues through. Preparing an SHA is significantly easier, quicker and cheaper when it is done at the beginning, compared to difficult negotiations later on when there is already a growing rift between the parties. The SHA protects the company when things don’t go as planned, and, as we all know, plans never go to plan. Preparing the SHA carefully takes a weight off your shoulders and leaves you free to concentrate on your business at full stretch.

Tuomas Honkinen

Latest references

We advised Lantmännen ek för in its contemplated acquisition of Leipurin from Aspo Plc. Lantmännen is an agricultural cooperative and Northern Europe’s leader in agriculture, machinery, bioenergy and food products. Lantmännen is owned by 17,000 Swedish farmers and has 12,000 employees in over 20 countries. Leipurin is a leading Nordic supplier of bakery ingredients, equipment, and expert services to professional bakeries, confectioneries, and food manufacturers. The company operates across Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic countries with subsidiaries located in the aforementioned countries, providing comprehensive solutions to the baking industry. The closing of the transaction remains subject to regulatory approvals.
Case published 25.8.2025
We assisted Oomi Oy in its expansion into the mobile telecommunications market with the launch of Oomi Mobiili, a new MVNO brand. Our work covered the preceding due diligence process as well as structuring and negotiating key partner agreements, laying a solid foundation for Oomi’s entry into the new market. Oomi Mobiili will operate as a virtual mobile network operator, offering customers the option to purchase a mobile subscription together with their electricity contract. The phased launch is set to begin in autumn 2025, with nationwide availability targeted for early 2026. 
Case published 15.8.2025
We advised Nevel Oy in its acquisition of the business of Labio Oy. Lahti Aqua Oy and Salpakierto Oy sold their entire shareholdings in Labio to Nevel, expanding Nevel’s already significant biogas portfolio. The transaction will have no impact on Lahti Aqua’s water utility operations or Salpakierto’s municipal waste management responsibilities. Labio’s operations and customer relationships will continue as before. ‘This partnership is a natural next step for us as we continue investing in sustainable material efficiency and renewable energy solutions. By integrating Labio’s comprehensive offerings and expertise, we can provide customers with a strong platform for material circularity. We are also strengthening our market position as one of Finland’s leading material efficiency solution providers,’ says Ville Koikkalainen, Director of Industrial and Biogas Business at Nevel. Nevel is an energy infrastructure company offering advanced, climate-positive solutions for industry and real estate. It operates more than 130 energy production plants and manages over 40 district heating networks. Nevel’s annual turnover is EUR 150 million, and it employs 190 experts in Finland, Sweden and Estonia.
Case published 16.7.2025
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) issued a significant precedent (decision KHO:2025:23) in a case in which it found that the Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre (Liikennevakuutuskeskus, LVK) processed patient data in accordance with the requirements concerning fairness, data minimisation, and privacy by design and by default when deciding on compensation claims. We represented LVK in this case in which the SAC upheld the Administrative Court’s decision to repeal the EUR 52,000 administrative fine imposed on LVK by the Sanctions Board of the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman. The SAC also confirmed the Administrative Court’s decision, which, as far as we know, was the first of its kind in Finland, ordering the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman to reimburse some of our client’s legal costs. The decision bears great significance for the insurance industry as a whole. The crux of the matter were LVK’s information requests under the Motor Liability Insurance Act for patient data that were essential in determining insurance or compensation claims. In certain cases, making a decision may require extensive patient data. The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman had found that LVK had systematically made overly broad information requests infringing Articles 5 and 25 of the GDPR and that the information should have been provided in the form of separate medical opinions. The Administrative Court repealed the Data Protection Ombudsman’s decision and found that patient records from medical appointments are, as a general rule, essential in establishing causality in compensation matters. It also stated that the tasks related to the consideration of compensation matters are specifically the core tasks of the insurance company and not of the controller of patient data. Furthermore, the Administrative Court found no evidence indicating that LVK would have systematically made overly broad information requests. ‘Once again, our collaboration with C&S was seamless throughout this extensive process, and we could trust that our case was in expert hands’, says Visa Kronbäck, Chief Legal Officer of the Insurance Centre. The full decision is available on the SAC website (in Finnish):  KHO:2025:23.
Case published 18.6.2025