Shareholder exclusion requires a specific statutory or contractual route. This article separates resolutions, form, jurisdiction and compensation.
Your shareholder dispute team
Dispute team for shareholders and managing directors
A shareholder dispute calls for corporate law, litigation strategy and commercial understanding from one team. Mag. Bernhard Brandauer is responsible for the legal advice; depending on the conflict, further specialised lawyers of the firm support safeguards, evidence, negotiations and court enforcement.
Contact the teamExcluding a shareholder from an Austrian GmbH is not a single standard procedure. The first question is whether the articles contain an exclusion or buyout clause, whether the Shareholder Exclusion Act applies, or whether the dispute leaves only other corporate-law claims. Evidence, resolutions, form, jurisdiction, compensation and business continuity can only be planned once that legal route is identified.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Write evidence plan per allegation and order witnesses, contracts, emails. The basis is secured. Now review the claim, jurisdiction, deadline and procedural objective together.
Write evidence plan per allegation and order witnesses, contracts, emails. First secure the articles, resolutions, correspondence, register data and deadline evidence. A reliable course can then be chosen.
Put the contractual clause or statutory mechanism, competent decision-maker, form, compensation and continuation into one implementation plan. Only then decide whether a court application or action is required.
Secure the articles, resolutions, ownership position, correspondence and valuation documents. Once the specific route is identified, the required resolution, notarial form or court step can be selected.
The Austrian GmbHG does not provide a general majority resolution that removes another shareholder merely because an important reason is alleged. A contractual exclusion or buyout clause must be read for its trigger, decision-maker, majority, voting position of the affected shareholder, transfer mechanism and pricing rule. The notarial-deed requirements under section 76 paragraph 2 GmbHG must also be considered for a transfer or an obligation to transfer.
A distinct statutory route exists under the Austrian Shareholder Exclusion Act, the GesAusG. It requires a principal shareholder holding at least nine tenths of the nominal capital. At that shareholder’s request, the general meeting resolves to transfer the remaining shares against adequate cash compensation. Under section 4 GesAusG, the resolution requires a majority of votes cast, the principal shareholder’s consent and notarial recording.
Without a contractual or statutory mechanism, an exclusion action must not be presented as an automatically available remedy. The cause of action and relief have to be identified separately alongside possible challenges to resolutions, injunctions, damages, removal of a shareholder-managing director, an agreed share transfer or dissolution. The topic page on shareholder exclusion, the shareholder exclusion assessment and the preparation checklist explain these routes in more detail.
For a contractual clause, the competent decision-maker is determined by the articles. They may require a shareholder resolution, grant a buyout right to named shareholders or provide another implementation mechanism. Majority, the affected shareholder’s voting position and form cannot be borrowed from a different model. If the clause must first be created or amended, sections 49 and 50 GmbHG apply, including notarial recording and the required majority; interference with individual rights may require additional consent.
Under the GesAusG, the management files the notarised exclusion resolution with the company register. The minority shares transfer to the principal shareholder only upon registration. The principal shareholder owes the adequate cash compensation and must secure it under the statutory trustee or bank-guarantee rules. Judicial review of the compensation follows the special procedure under section 6 GesAusG.
For any other contentious route, jurisdiction depends on the precise relief sought. An action for performance, a declaration, a resolution defect or dissolution pursues a different objective. Compensation must likewise not be assigned to the GmbH as a general rule: the contract, acquirer, valuation date, pricing rule, due date and security must fit the selected mechanism.
Section 3 Shareholder Exclusion Act requires the management and the principal shareholder to prepare a joint report. It must explain the conditions for the exclusion and explain and justify the adequacy of the cash compensation. Any particular difficulties in valuing the company must also be addressed.
For a GmbH, the relevant documents must be sent to the shareholders. At least 14 days must pass between posting the documents and the date of the resolution. The report, valuation documents and draft resolution should therefore be organised with the articles and the current cap table.
If the company’s assets or earnings or the principal shareholder’s plans change materially before the resolution, management must provide information about that change. It may justify a different cash compensation. The separate analysis of an invalid GmbH resolution helps with resolution defects, but it does not replace the report or the formal steps under the Act.
Under section 4 Shareholder Exclusion Act, the resolution requires a majority of votes cast and the principal shareholder’s consent. The articles may require a higher majority or additional requirements. Notarial recording and including the exclusion reports in the minutes or as an annex are separate preparation steps.
Under section 5, management files the exclusion resolution with the company register. The filing must include the minutes and the required declarations. The resolution may be registered only after the trustee has notified the register court that the full cash compensation or an adequate bank guarantee is held.
The minority shares transfer to the principal shareholder only upon registration. The resolution, notarial record, company-register filing and compensation security must therefore be planned as one sequence. The shareholder-exclusion topic page provides the broader route comparison.
Section 2 Shareholder Exclusion Act uses the date of the resolution as the valuation date for adequate cash compensation. Special rights must be taken into account. The economic valuation and the question whether the exclusion route is available are separate review steps.
The cash compensation must be deposited with the trustee before the general meeting is convened. A bank guarantee may be used instead. Section 6 provides a separate court procedure for excluded shareholders to review the cash compensation. The adequacy of compensation is therefore not simply replaced by a resolution challenge.
The first document file should contain the articles, cap table, exclusion report, valuation documents, draft resolution, notarial record and proof of compensation security. The exclusion assessment and the preparation checklist help organise these points before the next meeting.
No. A specific statutory or contractual mechanism is required. Under the GesAusG, this includes the nine-tenths threshold, a general-meeting resolution, the principal shareholder’s consent and notarial recording.
That depends on the existing clause and implementation route. If the articles must first be amended, sections 49 and 50 GmbHG and any additional consent of affected shareholders must be reviewed. Section 76 paragraph 2 GmbHG must be considered for share transfers.
That depends on the mechanism. Under the GesAusG, the principal shareholder grants the adequate cash compensation. Under contractual buyout or transfer models, the clause and acquirer determine the payer, valuation, due date and security.
Safeguard, challenge and enforce shareholder disputes. Portal for active GmbH conflicts covering first safeguards, resolution challenge, exclusion and preliminary injunction.
Contact