Sealed offers settled a forty-million-dollar partner split

The situation

The call came on a Tuesday evening. Andriy had just left a shareholders' meeting that ended in a standoff, and he wanted to know, before anything else, whether the buy-sell clause in his shareholder agreement actually meant what he thought it meant. He and his partner Mathan owned a diagnostic services company together, split fifty-fifty, and they had reached the point where neither of them could get the other to agree on anything larger than payroll.

Andriy explained the background over that first call and the meeting that followed. He and Mathan had started the company together more than a decade earlier, splitting responsibilities the way founders often do, by instinct rather than formal role, and for most of that decade the informal split had worked fine. It stopped working once the disagreement over expansion became a proxy for a wider set of differences about risk tolerance that neither of them had ever needed to resolve before, because until then they had never disagreed about anything large enough to force the question.

The company was substantial by then, built up over more than a decade, with a workforce that included clinical staff, administrative teams, and a management layer that reported jointly to both owners, among them Senthil, who ran day-to-day clinical operations and had answered to both partners equally for years without ever being asked to take a side. Andriy, whose own background was in hospital operations management before he went into business with Mathan, had wanted to expand into a second facility. Mathan, whose training was in accounting, thought the balance sheet could not support it yet and wanted to pay down debt first. The disagreement itself was not unusual. What made it dangerous was that it had started affecting decisions the company needed to make immediately, and the board had no tie-breaking mechanism beyond the two of them.

Buried in their shareholder agreement, drafted years earlier when the company was much smaller, was a shotgun clause: either owner could name a price for the whole business, and the other owner then had to choose between buying out the first at that price or selling their own shares at the same price. It is a mechanism designed to force resolution precisely because it punishes a low-ball offer as easily as a high one. Andriy had read the clause a dozen times and still was not confident he understood the sequence, the deadlines, or what would happen if the other side simply refused to respond.

What he needed first was not a negotiating strategy. It was a straight answer on what the clause actually required, in what order, and what protections existed if the process stalled partway through.

The gap nobody had noticed

The shotgun clause had been drafted with a private buy-out in mind: one partner writes a cheque, the other walks away. Nobody who wrote it had considered what would happen if the winning side needed outside financing to actually complete the purchase, and that gap turned out to matter enormously once the process was underway.

Once Andriy triggered the clause with a sealed offer, Mathan's response was to sell rather than buy, which meant Andriy now had to find the capital to complete a transaction in the tens of millions of dollars within the timeline the clause set out. Andriy did not have that kind of personal capital, and a straight bank loan would have meant taking on debt the operating company could not comfortably carry. The structure that made sense instead was a sale to an employee ownership trust, a vehicle that would let the company's own employees become co-owners over time, financed in large part by the business's own future earnings rather than by Andriy personally.

Federal rules governing this kind of trust require it to hold a genuine majority stake in the company for the arrangement to qualify for its intended tax treatment; a trust holding only a minority interest alongside a continuing majority owner does not qualify. That requirement reshaped the plan. Rather than have the trust buy only Mathan's half and leave Andriy as majority owner, Andriy agreed to sell his own shares into the same trust on deferred terms, converting his stake into a long-term incentive tied to the company's future performance while he stayed on as chief executive. That solved the shotgun clause's demand for cash and built the ownership structure the trust needed to qualify, but it meant the transaction now depended on a piece of federal tax machinery neither Andriy's shareholder agreement nor his original plan had accounted for.

It also introduced a timing problem the shotgun clause had never anticipated. Because the amounts involved were large and several of the eligibility conditions turned on facts that would only be settled at closing, we recommended seeking an advance income tax ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency confirming the structure met the requirements for the intended tax treatment before money changed hands. A ruling request is not mandatory, but for a transaction this size the certainty was worth the wait, and the Agency does not process ruling requests on a private contract's clock. The shotgun clause's deadlines assumed a buyer who could close in weeks. A ruling request realistically needed several months, and Mathan, who was owed his money regardless of what structure Andriy used to raise it, had no obligation to wait.

This was the gap: a well-drafted trigger mechanism sitting on a completion timeline that assumed a kind of buyer the clause's authors never pictured. Left alone, it would have forced Andriy into a worse financing structure just to hit the deadline, or a breach of the shareholder agreement he had triggered himself.

What we did

1. Confirmed the mechanics of the clause before anything else moved. We read the shotgun provision line by line against the rest of the shareholder agreement to establish exactly what notice was required, how long Mathan had to elect, and what remedies existed for delay, because Andriy could not safely commit to a price without knowing precisely what obligations that price would trigger.
2. Ran a valuation exercise to support the sealed offer. A shotgun clause punishes a bad number in either direction: name a price too high and you risk being forced to buy at a level the company cannot sustain; name one too low and you risk being forced to sell for less than it is worth. We worked with financial advisors to build a defensible range before Andriy named his figure, weighing recent earnings, the sector's typical multiples, and the debt already on the books.
3. Drafted and delivered the sealed offer under the clause's exact terms. Notice requirements in buy-sell provisions are frequently technical — the method of delivery, the deadline for a response, and the information the offer must contain are often spelled out precisely in the agreement — and a defective trigger can be challenged later on exactly those grounds. We matched delivery, timing, and content to what the agreement specified rather than what seemed reasonable, and kept a documented record of service so a later challenge would have nothing to work with.
4. Once Mathan elected to sell, restructured the buyer side around the employee ownership trust. We brought in tax counsel early because the trust election has strict eligibility conditions, including the requirement that the trust hold a genuine majority stake once the transaction closed. That meant convincing Andriy to sell his own shares into the trust too, on deferred terms, rather than simply financing Mathan's buyout personally — a bigger commitment than Andriy had pictured, but the only structure that let the trust qualify at all.
5. Negotiated an extension to the completion deadline directly with Mathan's counsel. Rather than let the mismatch between the clause's timeline and the pending CRA ruling request become a fight, we proposed a written extension with an interim payment covering a substantial share of what Mathan was owed, security over company assets for the balance, and interest accruing from the original deadline, giving Mathan real certainty while the ruling was pending.
6. Managed the ruling request in parallel with deal documentation. We kept the trust deed, purchase agreement, and financing terms moving forward on paper while the request sat with the Canada Revenue Agency, so closing could happen quickly once the ruling came through rather than starting drafting from scratch. We also worked with Andriy and Senthil, already staff's natural point of contact, on a plain-language explanation of the change, so the wait did not read internally as uncertainty.
7. Closed the transaction once the ruling was confirmed. We coordinated final adjustments to the purchase price to reflect the extra months of interim payments, confirmed the trust's governance documents were in place, including Senthil's seat as the employee-nominated trustee representing staff on the board, and completed the transfer of both Mathan's and Andriy's shares into the employee ownership trust structure once every condition was satisfied.

The outcome

The transaction closed at a valuation in the $30M to $50M range Andriy and Mathan's business fell into, with the employee ownership trust taking over full ownership and Andriy staying on to run the company under the new structure. Mathan received his interim payment on the original schedule the shotgun clause contemplated, plus the balance once the CRA ruling came through, and both figures were fixed by the sealed offer process itself rather than by further negotiation once Andriy's number was on the table.

The delay cost something. Mathan's counsel negotiated interest on the deferred balance for the extra months the ruling request took, and Andriy accepted that as the price of using a financing structure that let him avoid personal debt or a rushed sale to an outside buyer. It was not free, but it was a known, bounded cost, and it compared favourably against what a bank loan large enough to cover the buy-out outright would have cost over the same period.

The employees who became beneficiaries of the trust were not part of the negotiation between Andriy and Mathan, but they were very much affected by how it resolved, and with Senthil now sitting as their nominated trustee, they had a direct channel into decisions the trust would make going forward rather than hearing about them secondhand. A slower, better-financed transition meant the company avoided the kind of sudden ownership change that sometimes triggers instability among staff, and the trust structure gave employees a long-term stake in the business's performance that a straight private buy-out never would have created. Andriy considered that an underappreciated benefit of the path the funding problem had forced him toward.

The result vindicated the process the shareholder agreement had set up, even though the agreement's authors had not anticipated exactly how it would play out. The shotgun clause did what it was designed to do: it forced a resolution when the two partners could not agree, at a price neither side could credibly call unfair since Andriy himself had set it. What made the outcome workable rather than merely correct was treating the completion deadline as something that could be renegotiated in good faith once the reason for the delay was external and out of either party's control.

What you can learn from this