<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
        xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
        xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
        xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
        xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
        xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
        xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
        >
<channel>
        <title>Global Private Equity Watch - Feed</title>
        <atom:link href="https://privateequity.weil.com/category/shareholder-agreements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/category/shareholder-agreements/</link>
        <description></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:23:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <language></language>
        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
        
                                        <item>
                        <title>Determining the Fair Market Value of Shares—“Unintended Mischief” from Marketability and Minority Discounts</title>
                        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/glenn-west-musings/determining-the-fair-market-value-of-shares/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 14:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
						                                        <dc:creator>
											Glenn D. West</dc:creator>
                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://privateequity.weil.com/?p=7611</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[Distinguishing between an entity and the ownership of equity in that entity is not difficult. But it is surprising how often those two...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Distinguishing between an entity and the ownership of equity in that entity is not difficult. But it is surprising how often those two distinct concepts become conflated or obscured in the drafting of commercial agreements. Thus, in a New York case involving the interpretation of a prenuptial agreement, a spouse was denied a share of the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/glenn-west-musings/determining-the-fair-market-value-of-shares/">Determining the Fair Market Value of Shares—“Unintended Mischief” from Marketability and Minority Discounts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>Director Designation Rights are not Inviolable for PE Sponsors</title>
                        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/director-designation-rights-are-not-inviolable-for-pe-sponsors/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
						                                        <dc:creator>
											David B. Gail</dc:creator>
                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://peblog.wpengine.com/?p=1003</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[Weil's Private Equity team discuss the broadly applicable holding from the Delaware Chancery Court that director designation rights are not inviolable,]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Private equity sponsors received a warning earlier this summer from the Delaware Chancery Court that director designation rights are not inviolable, and that a company can impose reasonable conditions prior to seating a director designee—even where the agreement providing for such designation rights does not contemplate any conditions. While the facts in Partners Healthcare Solutions [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/director-designation-rights-are-not-inviolable-for-pe-sponsors/">Director Designation Rights are not Inviolable for PE Sponsors</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>The Implications of Halpin v. Riverstone National  for Drafting and Exercising Drag-Along Provisions</title>
                        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/the-implications-of-halpin-v-riverstone-national-for-drafting-and-exercising-drag-along-provisions/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:34:17 +0000</pubDate>
						                                        <dc:creator>
											Ryan Taylor</dc:creator>
                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://peblog.wpengine.com/?p=729</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>The Delaware Court of Chancery’s ruling in Halpin v. Riverstone National* is an important decision for private equity professionals. While the Delaware courts have previously found that a holder of preferred stock may waive its rights of appraisal in advance, they have not expressly addressed the enforceability of an advance waiver of appraisal rights by [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/the-implications-of-halpin-v-riverstone-national-for-drafting-and-exercising-drag-along-provisions/">The Implications of Halpin v. Riverstone National  for Drafting and Exercising Drag-Along Provisions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Delaware Court of Chancery’s ruling in Halpin v. Riverstone National* is an important decision for private equity professionals. While the Delaware courts have previously found that a holder of preferred stock may waive its rights of appraisal in advance, they have not expressly addressed the enforceability of an advance waiver of appraisal rights by [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/the-implications-of-halpin-v-riverstone-national-for-drafting-and-exercising-drag-along-provisions/">The Implications of Halpin v. Riverstone National  for Drafting and Exercising Drag-Along Provisions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>A Reminder Regarding the Importance of a Well-Drafted Drag Provision</title>
                        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-reminder-regarding-the-importance-of-a-well-drafted-drag-provision/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
						                                        <dc:creator>
											Global Private Equity Watch</dc:creator>
                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://peblog.wpengine.com/?p=721</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>A common practice in private company mergers is to attempt to bind a selling company’s minority stockholders to certain obligations, such as indemnification obligations and releases, by including the acknowledgement of such obligations in the letter of transmittal that is signed as a condition to the receipt of the merger consideration in the transaction.  The [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-reminder-regarding-the-importance-of-a-well-drafted-drag-provision/">A Reminder Regarding the Importance of a Well-Drafted Drag Provision</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A common practice in private company mergers is to attempt to bind a selling company’s minority stockholders to certain obligations, such as indemnification obligations and releases, by including the acknowledgement of such obligations in the letter of transmittal that is signed as a condition to the receipt of the merger consideration in the transaction.  The [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-reminder-regarding-the-importance-of-a-well-drafted-drag-provision/">A Reminder Regarding the Importance of a Well-Drafted Drag Provision</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
                                        <item>
                        <title>A Potential Shield for PE Sponsors: Interpreting the Term “Affiliate” in Contracts</title>
                        <link>https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-potential-shield-for-pe-sponsors-interpreting-the-term-affiliate-in-contracts/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
						                                        <dc:creator>
											Global Private Equity Watch</dc:creator>
                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://peblog.wpengine.com/?p=679</guid>
                        <description><![CDATA[<p>In an important ruling, especially for private equity sponsors, the New York Court of Appeals recently held in Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc. (Ellington), that use of the term “affiliates” in a contract includes only those affiliates in existence at the time the contract was executed, absent explicit language demonstrating that the parties intended to [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-potential-shield-for-pe-sponsors-interpreting-the-term-affiliate-in-contracts/">A Potential Shield for PE Sponsors: Interpreting the Term “Affiliate” in Contracts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In an important ruling, especially for private equity sponsors, the New York Court of Appeals recently held in Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc. (Ellington), that use of the term “affiliates” in a contract includes only those affiliates in existence at the time the contract was executed, absent explicit language demonstrating that the parties intended to [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com/insights/a-potential-shield-for-pe-sponsors-interpreting-the-term-affiliate-in-contracts/">A Potential Shield for PE Sponsors: Interpreting the Term “Affiliate” in Contracts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://privateequity.weil.com">Global Private Equity Watch</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                                                </item>
        </channel>
</rss>