Constitutions are general and high-level rules for corporate governance. The next issue to consider in this issue is the price at which the shares should be repurchased in such a forced transfer situation. There are a whole range of approaches. When it has been decided that an outgoing shareholder should dispose of all of its shares, the question arises as to whether those shares should be acquired at market value or at a certain discount on market value or on another basis. Under these conditions, market value is most often determined by an auditor, z.B.dem examiner or other independent evaluator. As a general rule, discounts are applied either in relation to the period during which the shareholder was in the company, and the longer the service time, the lower the discount factor and, after a certain period, no discount factor is applied to the market value and the shares are purchased at their market value. As a general rule, periods of three to five years are set for this purpose. Another approach is to apply a discount by referring to the question of whether the workers` shareholder was a “good graduate” or a “bad graduate.” In good year-end situations, the outgoing shareholder generally gets a market value and, in bad exit situations, he usually gets the lower price he paid for his shares and the market value of the shares. While there are different approaches to defining good starts and bad end-of-life situations, some of the situations of good start are more frequent where the working relationship ends: most standard institutions have the power to issue shares to the board of directors. While this power to issue shares may be limited by contractual provisions contained in the shareholders` pact described above, it is also appropriate to consider whether to impose on directors the obligation to offer shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings before issuing shares to a third party. These are called “pre-emption rights.” These pre-emption rights are included in Section 69 (6) of the Act, but are not applied in general admissions, so that the issuance of shares and compensation to the beneficiaries of these shares are entirely left to the discretion of the board of directors. However, it is also common for parties to decide to adopt a more personalized version of these pre-emption rights in the Constitution, which provides that directors must offer existing shareholders the opportunity to acquire these new shares in proportion to their existing holdings and give those shareholders a certain period during which they can indicate whether they wish to benefit from them. In addition, it may be expected that shareholders who have expressed an interest in acquiring more than their individual rights and who offer them the remaining shares may, at this stage, transfer the shares to third parties if the shareholders are not fully utilized, may return to shareholders who may have expressed an interest in taking their individual rights and offer them the remaining shares.
, or that administrators can at this stage issue the shares to third parties. Such bespoke pre-emption rights also provide, as a general rule, that they may or may not be applied with the agreement of all or part of the shareholders. This ability to waive or not apply pre-emption rights is useful where there is a consensus that the company requires investments that go beyond what can be provided by existing shareholders, thereby avoiding delay in compliance with the pre-emption procedure. Simply put, a shareholders` pact is essentially a contract between some or all the shareholders of a company and, often, the company itself.