DOCSLIB.ORG

Conflict Resolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conflict Resolution CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISM Mechanisms of conflict resolution In cases when the conflict cannot be prevented, there are commonly used mechanisms to resolve them. There are many alternatives for conflict resolution. Deciding on the type of dispute mechanism to use depends on a variety of factors including: the nature of the dispute; the relationship between the two partners; the sensitivity of the issues involved; and the likely outcome and cost of litigation. When these factors are considered, mediation 1. Negotiation Negotiation offers the best option and opportunity for peaceful conflict-resolution. When properly managed, conflicts can deepen relationships and strengthen the community, be it local or global. The basic rules of dispute-resolution are deceptively simple: Play fair. Apply the golden rules and principles of equality, justice and honesty. If one party keeps on moving the goal posts and changing the rules of the game, the other party will eventually cry “foul” and stop playing. Listen attentively and proactively. Try to understand each other's assumptions, ideas and intentions. Respect each other. Respect is the key to keeping the dialogue going. Don't insult, don't lie and don't play the "blaming" game. Find the common ground. Focus on sameness and common interests. Be clear about the objective. When either party is vague about its desired objective, it is difficult to reach an agreement. Be willing to consider other alternatives and be prepared to explore those various alternatives in order to find a win-win solution. Focus on facts. Separate facts from fiction and emotion. Agree on the basic set of realities that are directly relevant to the dispute. Use reason. Settle differences through meaning-clarification, problem-solving, mediation or third- party arbitration. Simply do what is reasonable according to most rational, objective observers. Resist the temptation to use force. When there is a power differential, the stronger one may want to settle the difference through force or threats of force. Be careful about achieving an unjust victory through superior might, because there are always negative side effects. Accept and tolerate differences. It is alright for a person to have deep convictions about his or her own beliefs and values, but that does not give him or her the right to attack those who hold different beliefs, no matter how offensive their views might be. Learn to co-exist. When there are irreconcilable differences, then the only solution is to agree to (a) go separate ways and (b) live apart in peace. 30 Sumaia & Civapalan 2013 Forgive each other. Both parties have to let go of past grievances and forgive each other in order to repair relationships. Be prepared to compromise. There has to be some give and take for both parties. It is possible for a person to compromise without sacrificing his or her principles. 2. Mediation Mediation serves to satisfy the needs of the two disputing partners, while at the same time preserving or strengthening their future relationship. A mediator sits down with the two partners and guides their discussion. The mediator is a neutral third party, with no independent authority or ability to impose a settlement – his or her role is not to make the final decision, but to guide the partners to a mutually-agreed-upon solution. 3. Arbitration Arbitration differs significantly from mediation. While the arbitrator is a neutral third party, the parties to the public-private partnership both argue their side of the dispute in arbitration, rather than working together to come to a solution, as is the case in mediation. The arbitrator then renders a final binding decision as to the solution to the dispute (unless the partners have agreed otherwise beforehand). In addition to saving time and money, the advantages of using either of these methods include: confidentiality – discussions to remedy the dispute are conducted in private, in front of a mediator or arbitrator, not in a public courtroom; the business relationship, which might be lost in the acrimonious environment of a courtroom, can be preserved; the dispute can be resolved privately and by using terms that both partners have agreed to in advance; complicated facts can be considered by the parties to the dispute, with the advice of outside experts from the field if necessary, rather than a decision being made by a judge or jury composed of lay people; and the distractions that can be caused among employees when litigation is involved are minimized. 4. Litigation Taking the case to court is the least preferred option – it increases the acrimony; it turns the conflict into a situation where the final outcome is a win-loss one; and pursuing legal action can be a drain on time and resources. Requirements for arbitration procedures and judiciaries Clear and fair arbitration procedures and independent judiciaries provide institutional safeguards because they provide accountability, and thus help make the contracting environment predictable and credible. These institutions help establish and maintain a high level of trust and co-operation between the public and private sectors. 31 Sumaia & Civapalan 2013 Certainty is increased for both parties when clear procedures exist for dispute resolution through arbitration or, when arbitration fails, through independent courts. The quality of these institutions is critical in signaling the government’s commitment to constraining the discretionary power of regulators. Thus, independent judiciaries provide a fundamental backstop to a country’s legal and regulatory system. An independent judiciary with a reputation for fairness adds credibility and transparency to the legal framework and thus gives comfort to investors. Ideally, domestic judicial or arbitral forums should not only be in place, but should also have a track record of predictability and fairness in decision-making. A consistent track record can produce potentially significant reductions in the risks associated with projects and with the associated pricing of project delivery. 5. off ramps Rather than taking the other party to court, it might be better for all concerned to realize that things aren’t going to be resolved and to fall back on the “off ramp” clauses that the contract contains to formally dissolve the partnership. The reasons for invoking off ramp clauses must be spelled out in the contract and should cover such factors as dissolving the partnership because (of): either partner feels that it should not continue in the relationship; the financial situation of the private partner; the scope of work or the price of subsequent phases of the project have been assessed as being unrealistic; the private partner may not be able to successfully complete the project; or the municipality may be unable to achieve satisfactory participation by the private partner. Much like the decision to partner, the local government should know the costs and benefits associated with the use of off ramp provisions before they are used. The local government should also have a contingency plan to mitigate service interruption should a public-private partnership off ramp be used. B. CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGY The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, which is an assessment used globally in conflict handling, specifies five strategies used to address conflict. They are as follows: 1. Accommodating Accommodation involves having to deal with the problem with an element of self-sacrifice; an individual sets aside his own concerns to maintain peace in the situation. Thus, the person yields to what the other wants, displaying a form of selflessness. It might come as an immediate solution to the issue; however it also brings about a false manner of dealing with the problem. This can be disruptive if there is a need to come up with a more sound and creative way out of the problem. This behavior will be most efficient if the individual is in the wrong as it can come as a form of conciliation. 32 Sumaia & Civapalan 2013 2. Avoiding In this approach, there is withdrawal from the conflict. The problem is being dealt with through a passive attitude. Avoiding is mostly used when the perceived negative end outweighs the positive outcome. In employing this, individuals end up ignoring the problem, thinking that the conflict will resolve itself. It might be applicable in certain situations but not in all. Avoidance would mean that you neglect the responsibility that comes with it. The other individuals involved might think that you are neglecting the problem. Thus, it is better to confront the problem before it gets worse. 3. Collaborating Collaborating aims to find a solution to the conflict through cooperating with other parties involved. Hence, communication is an important part of this strategy. In this mechanism, effort is exerted in digging into the issue to identify the needs of the individuals concerned without removing their respective interests from the picture. Collaborating individuals aim to come up with a successful resolution creatively, without compromising their own satisfactions. 4. Competing Competition involves authoritative and assertive behaviors. In this style, the aggressive individual aims to instil pressure on the other parties to achieve a goal. It includes the use of whatever means to attain what the individual thinks is right. It may be appropriate in some situations but it shouldn’t come to a point wherein the aggressor becomes too unreasonable. Dealing with the conflict with an open mind is vital for a resolution to be met. 5. Compromising Compromising is about coming up with a resolution that would be acceptable to the parties involved. Thus, one party is willing to sacrifice their own sets of goals as long as the others will do the same. Hence, it can be viewed as a mutual give-and-take scenario where the parties submit the same amount of investment for the problem to be solved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mediation Q&A: Us (New York)
    MEDIATION Q&A: US (NEW YORK) by Ronald R. Rossi, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP This document is published by Practical Law and can be found at: uk.practicallaw.com/W-006-5829 To learn more about legal solutions from Thomson Reuters, go to legal-solutions.co.uk USA - specific information concerning the key legal issues that need to be considered when mediating a dispute. RESOURCE INFORMATION This Q&A provides country-specific commentary on Practice note, Mediation: Cross-border and forms part of Cross-border dispute resolution. RESOURCE ID W-006-5829 RESOURCE TYPE CONTENTS Country Q&A • Judicial attitude towards mediations • Judges as mediators STATUS • Commercial attitude towards mediation • Mediator’s role post an unsuccessful mediation attempt Law stated as at 30-Jun-2017 • Laws on mediation • Court-annexed, judicial and online mediations JURISDICTION • International treaties on mediation • Costs United States • Mediation as a pre-condition to litigation • Confidentiality in relation to mediation proceedings • Costs consequences of refusing to mediate • Confidentiality obligations of the mediator • Limitation period • Exceptions to confidentiality • Disputes suitable for mediation • Documenting a settlement • Mediation agreement • Disposal of court proceedings • Standard clauses for mediation agreement • Enforcing settlements • Timing of mediation • Mediation institutions and centres • Choosing a mediator • Conduct of mediation • Accreditation schemes for mediators • Facilitative or evaluative mediation • Contributor details • Time frame
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEVELOPMENT of the ASEAN TRADE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM: from DIPLOMACY to LEGALISM KOESRIANTI a Thesis Submitted In
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASEAN TRADE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM: FROM DIPLOMACY TO LEGALISM KOESRIANTI A thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales 2005 ABSTRACT In the late twentieth century international trade moved from a political multi-polar system based on the nation-state to a system featuring unified regional trading regimes. An inevitable feature of increased cooperation through bilateral, regional and international arrangements is the emergence of disputes over the interpretation and implementation of the agreed upon commitments. Accordingly, reliable mechanisms for the settlement of trade related disputes have become necessary to ensure the effective and continued functioning of these arrangements. Over the years these dispute settlement mechanisms have evolved from the relatively simple, diplomacy based structures called for in the GATT, to the detailed, legalistic, adjudication based mechanism found in the WTO. Bilateral and regional initiatives, such as NAFTA and MERCOSUR, as well as the EU, have similarly adopted dispute settlement mechanisms which adopt, in varying degrees, legalistic adjudicatory processes. Since 1967 ASEAN has spearheaded the creation of a regional trading bloc in the South East Asian region. As in other trading blocs, this has inevitable led to the need to develop effective and workable dispute settlement mechanisms. This thesis examines the development of trade dispute settlement mechanisms in ASEAN tracing its development from a model based on pragmatic diplomacy to a legalistic adjudicatory system with particular reference to the ASEAN context. It examines the extent to which the ASEAN context has influenced the content and the adoption of trade dispute settlement mechanisms in the region, as well as the extent to which the recently adopted 2004 Enhanced Protocol on Dispute Settlement can adequately address trade disputes in the region while remaining sensitive and responsive to the ASEAN context.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporations and Human Rights: Accountability Mechanisms for Resolving Complaints and Disputes
    Corporations and Human Rights: Accountability Mechanisms for Resolving Complaints and Disputes Report of a Multi-Stakeholder Workshop 11-12 April, 2007 Caroline Rees, Research Fellow Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative A report of the: Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative A Cooperative Project among: The Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government The Center for Public Leadership The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Citation This report may be cited as: Rees, Caroline. 2007. “Corporations and Human Rights: Accountability Mechanisms for Resolving Complaints and Disputes.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Report No. 15. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Comments may be directed to the author. Special thanks to the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations for assistance in all aspects of this project. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government is a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder program that seeks to study and enhance the public role of the private enterprise. It explores the intersection of corporate responsibility, corporate governance and strategy, public policy, and the media. It bridges theory and practice, builds leadership skills, and supports constructive dialogue and collaboration among different sectors. It was founded in 2004 with the support of Walter H. Shorenstein, Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, and General Motors. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or Harvard University. For Further Information Further information on the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative can be obtained from the Program Coordinator, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, John F.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    42705 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized RESOLUTION STUDY UKRAINE COMMERCIAL DISPUTE Researching commercial disputes amongUkrainian disputes companies commercial Researching The contents of this report are protected by copyright. Neither this report nor its parts may be reproduced, copied or distributed in any form without reference to the International Finance Corporation report “Ukraine Commercial Dispute Resolution Study. Researching Commercial Disputes among Ukrainian Companies”. This report is to be distributed under the condition that it will not (as the result of sale or otherwise) be loaned or resold, rented or distributed on any kind of commercial basis without prior consent from the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The materials contained in this report are presented as an overview of the results of a study that was conducted in May-June 2006 among Ukrainian companies by size – small, medium and large and by region – Kyiv, Lviv and Dnipropetrovsk. The study was funded jointly by IFC and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). The information in this report is presented in good faith for general information purposes, and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group or PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) shall not be held liable for any of the information contained herein. This report does not claim to serve as an exhaustive presentation of the issues discussed herein. Although the Ukraine Commercial Dispute Resolution Study experts took a very thorough approach in preparing this report, it should not be used as a basis for making commercial decisions. Please approach independent legal experts for their expert recommendations on any legal issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Handling and Redress System for Retail Investors
    Complaint Handling and Redress System for Retail Investors Final Report The Board OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SECURITIES COMMISSIONS FR01/2021 JANUARY 2021 Copies of publications are available from: The International Organization of Securities Commissions website www.iosco.org © International Organization of Securities Commissions 2021. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated. ii Contents 1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Background and Context ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Definitions .............................................................................................................. 4 3. Comparative Study ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 Complaint Handling by FSPs .............................................................................. 4 3.2 Complaint Handling by Securities Regulators ................................................... 8 3.3 Alternative Dispute Resolution .......................................................................... 13 3.4 Civil action ........................................................................................................... 19 4. Conclusion and Sound Practices ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (LRC CP 50 – 2008) CONSULTATION PAPER ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (LRC CP 50 - 2008) © COPYRIGHT Law Reform Commission FIRST PUBLISHED July 2008 ISSN 1393 – 3140 i LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLE The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission‘s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernize the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published over 140 documents containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. The Commission‘s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in December 2007 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, the Commission‘s role includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. Under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the Attorney General it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question. The Legislation Directory - previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes - is a searchable annotated guide to legislative changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Draft: Mapping Remedy Mechanisms
    Centre for Sport and Human Rights Draft for consultation Mapping Remedy Mechanisms for Sports-Related Human Rights Grievances NOTE: This draft paper, prepared in December 2018, has been shared for consultation only and is not for citation or dissemination. Comments on this draft will be welcomed until 31 January 2019 to: • [email protected]; and • [email protected] DRAFT Mapping Remedy Mechanisms for Sports-Related Human Rights Grievances TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... 2 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 3 1. THE MEANING OF EFFECTIVE REMEDIES IN THE SPORT AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT ....................................................................... 5 2. EXAMPLES OF ADVERSE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS ..................... 7 3. THE STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF EXISTING MECHANISMS IN THE WORLD OF SPORTS ..................................................................... 9 4. LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM ADDITIONAL (NON-SPORT) MECHANISMS ........................................................................................... 10 5. KEY QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 25 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 29 1. THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) ........................ 30 2. THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION (PCA) .....................
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Disputes and Dispute Resolution Systems at the Club Level in Sport
    AN ANALYSIS OF DISPUTES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS AT THE CLUB LEVEL IN SPORT Hilary Findlay, Brock University, Canada, hfi [email protected] INTRODUCTION How an organization deals with disputes can have a dramatic impact on the operational capacity of the organization but at the same time, the capacity of the organization can affect its ability to effectively deal with disputes. At the international and national levels of sport, formal independent dispute resolution processes are increasingly a core mechanism of the sport system. An important fi nding from studies of dispute resolution systems in general is that their structure very much infl uences how they function. In the sport sector, very little has been written addressing this element of system design. The core methods of dispute resolution at the national and international levels are similar: arbitration and mediation, although the evidence suggests the mediation element is rarely used (Newmark, 2002). Nonetheless, the pattern of reliance upon arbitration is not surprising given that for the predominant disputes at these levels (i.e., selection, eligibility and doping) there is typically little if any middle ground and, as such, they lend themselves to the arbitral process. There is little research into the nature of disputes beyond the national and international levels, i.e., at the developmental or grass roots level. In Canada, sport organizations operating at this level have essentially emulated the same dispute resolution processes at the national level; however, this structure may not be the best for dealing with their sport disputes. A singular and very limited study in 1998 of provincial sport governing bodies across Canada identifi ed three broad categories of factors underlying disputes at the provincial level: the policies and procedures available to the organization to handle confl ict, personality confl icts between and among those involved in the confl ict and the knowledge base of those individuals within the organization who handled complaints and confl ict (Sport Canada, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitration Procedures and Practice in the United States: Overview
    Arbitration Procedures and Practice in the United States:..., Practical Law Country... Arbitration Procedures and Practice in the United States: Overview by Christina Hioureas, Stephen Younger, Daniel Schimmel, Yoni Bard, Seth Reiner, Nour Nicolas and Kenneth Juan Figueroa, Foley Hoag LLP Country Q&A | Law stated as at 01-Jun-2021 | United States A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in the United States. The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including information relating to any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law, confidentiality, local courts' willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim. Use of Arbitration and Recent Trends 1. How is commercial arbitration used and what are the recent trends? This Q&A principally addresses United States (US) federal arbitration law, with some reference to New York and California state arbitration laws. Use of Commercial Arbitration Commercial arbitration is used extensively to resolve a wide range of commercial disputes. The largest caseload involves the following industries: construction, energy, financial services, life sciences, technology, insurance, aviation/aerospace, entertainment, and real estate. It is expected that, as the domestic courts continue to recover from backlogs and budget cuts resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, parties will increasingly turn to arbitration as a dispute mechanism of choice. Recent Trends Expedited arbitration. There has been an increase in the use of expedited arbitration, which has resulted in amendments to institutional rules to incorporate provisions governing expedited proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanism of Conciliation
    1 Mechanism of conciliation By Naimish Tewari1 In the 21st centaury, the population of our country stands approximately one hundred and thirty crores. The Indian judiciary is flooded with cases, moreover the Supreme court having a strength of just thirty-one judges has to look upon the seventh largest county of the world, it is a matter of fact that it takes decades for a person for finding justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. Arbitration and conciliation are the two mechanisms which developed because of the lawefficiency of the Indian judiciary, and the rate of disposal of cases be it either civil or criminal it is a matter of fact that it takes a grandfather to file a suit and it ends with his grandson, to counter this arbitration and conciliation came into picture, both are alternate dispute resolving mechanisms which save time and provide quick resolution, further it provides confidentiality and it is a much more friendly mechanism. Conciliation is a mechanism which is developed for dispute resolution and it is used on a global scale, it is a friendly way of negotiation out of court, in which the adjudicating authority has no binding power, it is different from arbitration as arbitration is a result of a former agreement of arbitration, or contract and arbitration is binding on the parties unlike conciliation, the process of conciliation. Conciliation has been said to be important for several factors, and special importance given to the political aspects arising out of conciliation as a dispute resolving mechanism2. Conciliation is regarded as an important legal concept as it is an amicable solution for international disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacy of Consent: Should Arbitration Be a Creature of Contract?
    Emory International Law Review Volume 35 Issue 2 2021 The Fallacy of Consent: Should Arbitration Be a Creature of Contract? Fabio Núñez del Prado Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Fabio Núñez del Prado, The Fallacy of Consent: Should Arbitration Be a Creature of Contract?, 35 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 219 (2021). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NÚÑEZ DEL PRADO_3.22.21 3/24/2021 10:54 AM THE FALLACY OF CONSENT: SHOULD ARBITRATION BE A CREATURE OF CONTRACT? Fabio Núñez del Prado* ABSTRACT Arbitration is a creature of contract. This paradigm is so basic that it is accepted in all the States of the world. Nevertheless, arbitration is perceived as the most suitable method for the settlement of commercial disputes. Virtually all commercial disputes are resolved through arbitration. The natural order of things has been reversed. In commercial matters, at least, arbitration is the rule, and courts the exception. Why is it, then, that parties must opt in for a solution which appears as the most natural one in the community? I propose to question this default rule and propose an extreme shift: Arbitration should become the default jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Shareholders' Agreement: Resolving Shareholder Conflict Before It Starts
    Duncan Craig LLP https://dcllp.com/blog Shareholders’ Agreement: Resolving Shareholder Conflict Before it Starts Author : Edward Feehan It is an unavoidable cost of conducting business that your corporation will inevitably be embroiled in a litigation dispute. What most owners do not realize, however, is that the disputes that cause the greatest level of damages to their business are the internal fights between the shareholders. The commercial litigators at Duncan Craig LLP are often called upon to resolve disputes between shareholders. How efficiently we can help resolve the conflict is often dependent on the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within a shareholders’ agreement, if such a document even exists. The types of disputes that can arise between shareholders are varied and their impact on the business can range from minor irritation to potential demise. Common disputes between shareholders include: • Conflict over the direction of the company • Underperformance or low involvement by one of the shareholders / directors • Disagreement over compensation for directors / shareholders • Conflicts of interest between competing investments • The taking on of debt or ability to pay off debt • The value of shares if one owner is looking to sell A well-drafted shareholders’ agreement can help prevent or minimize disputes by setting out the policies for managing many of these issues. It can also be used to specify the process for resolving disputes should they still occur. Having dispute resolution policies in place will help protect the on- going operations of the company by setting out the timeframe and process for resolving the conflict. For serious disputes, the shareholders’ agreement can also be used to keep matters out of the Courts until the mutually agreed resolution mechanisms have been exhausted.
    [Show full text]