The dispute involved the shareholders in a large 30-year old multi-national corporation. The major shareholders were unable to persuade a key director, who was also a minority shareholder, to confirm the company accounts in compliance with regulatory requirements. The minority shareholder alleged that there were parts of the accounts which he had no information on and this was why he could not sign off on them. He proposed that the major shareholders buy out his shares. There were major differences in the valuation of the shares and the major shareholders were unwilling to proceed with the buy-out.
As the mediation progressed, it became evident that the key issue lay in the differences in management style and business vision. There were many angry words exchanged and serious accusations of improper dealings on both parts. After 2 days, the parties remained at an impasse.
On the third day, proceedings were similarly frustrating and parties, as advised by respective counsel, were ready to take the inevitable step to submit the matter to the courts.
However, matters took an expected twist when Aloysius invited the parties to speak about the positives of their more than 30 year business relationship. The directors spoke with deep emotion about the founding vision of the company and how they all missed the times when Christmases could be spent with each others’ families.
The mediation ended late in the evening with a settlement agreement outlining a revised management structure with new and clearer roles and responsibilities for each director and shareholder.