When a Co-Founder Died, a Buy-Sell Clause Was Put to the Test

The situation

Arman was in his second year of college in London when he and Darius, a long-haul truck driver he had known since high school, started selling outdoor gear online out of Darius's garage. What began as a weekend hobby grew faster than either of them expected. Within two years the business was bringing in roughly $100,000 a year in revenue, and on the advice of an accountant they incorporated it under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, splitting the shares evenly between them.

At incorporation, they also signed a shareholders' agreement — a contract that governs how the owners of a private corporation deal with each other, including what happens if one of them dies, becomes disabled, or wants to leave. Buried inside it was a share transfer on death clause: a mechanism requiring the surviving shareholder to buy out a deceased shareholder's shares from their estate, funded by a life insurance policy the corporation took out on each founder. At the time, it felt like a formality neither of them expected to need for thirty or forty years.

The problem

Darius died unexpectedly eighteen months after the business was incorporated, while its revenue was still climbing. His spouse, Hodan, was named the estate trustee in his will — the person legally responsible for administering his estate, including the corporate shares he had owned. Under the shareholders' agreement, those shares now had to be sold to Arman, and the insurance policy on Darius's life was supposed to fund the purchase.

The mechanism worked exactly as designed in one sense: the corporation was the named beneficiary on a policy worth roughly $50,000, and the funds arrived within a few months of the claim being filed. The trouble was on the valuation side. The shareholders' agreement priced a departing shareholder's stake using a formula tied to the company's book value at the time of the triggering event — a snapshot of the business's assets and liabilities on its books, not a full appraisal of what it was actually worth. When Arman and Darius signed the agreement, that formula produced a number close to the insurance amount by design. Eighteen months later, with revenue up and the business holding more inventory and cash than it had at the start, the same formula valued Darius's half of the company at roughly $65,000 — about $15,000 more than the insurance payout could cover.

Hodan, acting for the estate and for the couple's two young children who stood to inherit, was not willing to simply accept $50,000 for shares the agreement's own formula said were worth $65,000. Arman, a full-time student with no meaningful savings, did not have $15,000 in cash sitting anywhere. Both sides wanted the buyout to happen — Hodan needed to settle the estate and had no interest in becoming a working partner in a business she had never run, and Arman needed clear ownership to keep operating, sign supplier contracts, and open credit in the company's name. But neither could get there on the numbers as they stood.

What we did

1. Confirmed the buy-sell clause was actually binding and triggered. Before anything else, we reviewed the shareholders' agreement to confirm it had been properly signed by both founders, that the death of a shareholder was clearly listed as a triggering event, and that the valuation formula and funding mechanism were unambiguous. A poorly drafted or unsigned buy-sell clause can leave a surviving founder with no enforceable right to buy at all, forcing a stranger — in this case, the estate, or ultimately Hodan and her children — into permanent co-ownership of a business they have no interest in running. Here, the clause held up, which gave both sides a framework to work from rather than a dispute from scratch.
2. Verified the insurance proceeds and how they could be applied. We confirmed the corporation was the named beneficiary of the policy on Darius's life, which meant the funds could be paid to the corporation and then used to redeem — buy back and cancel — Darius's shares directly, rather than routed through Arman personally. This kept the transaction cleaner for tax purposes and avoided Arman needing to personally borrow the full purchase amount.
3. Opened negotiations with the estate's lawyer on the shortfall. Rather than let the $15,000 gap between the insurance proceeds and the formula valuation sit as an unresolved dispute, we approached Hodan's estate lawyer early with a proposal: the corporation would redeem the shares immediately using the full $50,000 in insurance proceeds, and issue a promissory note — a written promise to pay a specific amount by a certain date — for the remaining balance, secured against the business's future revenue and paid down over two years with interest.
4. Built in protection for both sides. The note included a personal guarantee from Arman, so Hodan's family had recourse beyond the corporation alone if the business faltered, and a right for Hodan to request basic financial updates until the note was paid off. In exchange, Hodan agreed to release the estate's claim to the shares and any further claim on the company once the note was satisfied.
5. Documented the share transfer properly. We prepared the corporate resolutions authorizing the redemption, updated the corporation's share register and minute book to reflect Arman as sole shareholder, and confirmed the estate's release was tied to the actual transfer taking effect rather than a promise to transfer later.

The outcome

Hodan accepted the arrangement about six weeks after the estate lawyer received the proposal. The corporation redeemed Darius's shares using the insurance proceeds plus the promissory note, and Arman became the sole shareholder of a business that, by then, was continuing to grow. Hodan received the full $65,000 value the agreement's formula assigned to the shares — $50,000 up front from the insurance, and the remaining roughly $15,000 paid over two years — rather than being pushed to accept a discount just because the insurance fell short.

It was not a clean win for either side. Arman took on a debt obligation he had not budgeted for and had to personally guarantee it while still a student, which meant real risk if the business had a bad stretch. Hodan did not get her family's money all at once, and had to trust a twenty-year-old college student to keep making payments for two years. But both got something close to what the shareholders' agreement actually promised them, without a costly dispute over the valuation formula or a fight about whether the buy-sell clause even applied. The note was paid off on schedule, and Arman has since brought on a part-time employee as the business has kept growing.

The case is a reminder that a buy-sell clause funded by life insurance is not a guarantee that the numbers will always line up — it is a starting mechanism that still needs everyone to negotiate in good faith when the business has outgrown the formula written into it years earlier. For a business that started as two friends splitting shipping costs on a garage-run side project, having any agreement in place at all put Hodan and Arman in a far better position than most informally run partnerships find themselves in when a co-owner dies without one.

What you can learn from this