ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Karel's Legal Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Karel's Legal Blog

DRAG-ALONG RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF ARUBA

By Karel.Frielink

ADVERTISEMENTS

Drag-along rights may be validly created

On January 1, 2009 the new Aruba Ordinance on companies with limited liability (vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid; VBA) became effective.

A drag-along right is a right that enables a majority shareholder to force a minority shareholder to join in the sale of his shares in a company (VBA). Generally, the majority shareholder doing the dragging must give the minority shareholder the same price, terms, and conditions that apply to him. The question with regards to Aruban law is whether the articles of association of a VBA may contain drag-along provisions.

Article 25(1) of the Ordinance reads basically as follows: the articles of a VBA may provide that, in cases to be precisely described in the articles, the shareholder must offer and transfer his shares to interested parties according to the terms provided in the articles or, for instance, determined pursuant to the articles by independent experts. This provision in the Aruba Ordinance will be triggered if the articles of association provide for a drag-along right. However, this provision will not be triggered if an ordinary shareholders? agreement provides for a drag-along provision.

However, a shareholders? agreement may contain a drag-along provision. Suppose the articles of association make reference to a shareholders? agreement. Would that trigger the statutory provision? No, although the mere fact that the shareholders’ agreement contains a drag-along provision, does not mean that such a provision is in conflict with Article 25(1) of the Ordinance. This is also in line with the general principle of ?freedom?, which governs the Ordinance. The main object of the Aruban legislator was flexibility and maximum freedom of organization and presentation. Accordingly, the Ordinance contains few mandatory provisions, such as provisions relating to the interests of creditors and minority shareholders.

Karel Frielink
Attorney (Lawyer) / Partner

(16 January 2010)

.

Full post as published by Karel's Legal Blog on January 16, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/02/26 22:05:05)