Acquirer v. Seller: Share Purchase Obligation and Risk Exoneration
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn acquiring party, having bought nearly all shares of a company, was obligated to purchase the remainder of the shares from the selling party by a specific date at a fixed, indexed price, and additionally agreed to pay the seller an annual sum equal to 6% of that fixed price. The seller exercised the option to sell, but the buyer sought annulment of the underlying commitment, arguing that the agreement effectively exempted the seller from all contribution to social losses until they left the company, contrary to the applicable civil code article prohibiting such exoneration. The appellate court dismissed the annulment claim, finding the operation was intended only to facilitate the seller's departure, not to exempt them from loss contribution, thus rendering the article inapplicable; however, the high court quashed this decision because, by failing to investigate whether the contractual provisions—which granted advantages to the seller as long as they remained a shareholder—effectively guaranteed them against any risk of potential loss in their capacity as a shareholder, the appellate court failed to provide a legal basis for its ruling.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 1855 DU CODE CIVIL, ARTICLE 1855 ANCIEN DU CODE CIVIL; Acquirer v. Seller: Share Purchase Obligation and Risk Exoneration: The seller exercised the option to sell, but the buyer sought annulment of the underlying commitment, arguing that the agreement effectively exempted the seller from all contribution to social losses until they left the company, contrary to the applicable civil code article prohibiting such exoneration. The appellate court dismissed the annulment claim, finding the operation was intended only to facilitate the seller's departure, not to exempt them from loss contribution, thus rendering the article inapplicable; however, the high court quashed this decision because, by failing to investigate whether the contractual provisions—which granted advantages to the seller as long as they remained a shareholder—effectively guaranteed them against any risk of potential loss in their capacity as a shareholder, the appellate court failed to provide a legal basis for its ruling.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe provision was the basis for the claim of nullity, and the Court of Cassation found the Court of Appeal failed to properly apply it by not investigating its effect on the guarantee against losses.
This is the substantive order resulting from the finding that the lower court failed to apply the correct legal basis (Art. 1855).
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE :
VU L'ARTICLE 1855 ANCIEN DU CODE CIVIL APPLICABLE A LA CAUSE;
ATTENDU QUE SELON LES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE (LYON, 4 AVRIL 1979) PERRIER, APRES AVOIR ACQUIS EN MAI 1973 LA QUASITOTALITE DES ACTIONS DE LA SOCIETE ANONYME ETABLISSEMENTS DAUBANAY S'EST OBLIGE ENVERS DAUBANAY A SE PORTER ACQUEREUR JUSQU'AU 15 MAI 1978 DU RESTE DE CES ACTIONS SI DAUBANAY LE LUI DEMANDAIT << JUSQU'A CETTE DATE >> , ET CE MOYENNANT UN PRIX DETERMINE ET INDEXE, PERRIER S'ENGAGEANT EN OUTRE A VERSER ANNUELLEMENT A DAUBANAY << UNE SOMME EGALE A 6 % DU MONTANT DU PRIX FIXE >> ; QUE DAUBANAY MANIFESTA SA VOLONTE DE VENDRE EN 1977; ATTENDU QUE POUR DEBOUTER PERRIER DE LA DEMANDE EN NULLITE PAR LAQUELLE IL FAISAIT VALOIR, SUR LE FONDEMENT DE L'ARTICLE SUSVISE, QUE PAR L'EFFET DES ENGAGEMENTS PRIS, DAUBANAY S'ETAIT AFFRANCHI, JUSQU'A SON DEPART EVENTUEL DE LA SOCIETE, DE TOUTE CONTRIBUTION AUX PERTES SOCIALES, L'ARRET ENONCE QUE << L'ENSEMBLE DE CETTE OPERATION JURIDIQUE ETAIT DESTINEE A PERMETTRE A DAUBANAY DE QUITTER LA SOCIETE ET NON DE L'AFFRANCHIR DE TOUTE CONTRIBUTION AUX PERTES; QUE, DES LORS, L'ARTICLE 1855 DU CODE CIVIL ETAIT SANS APPLICATION A L'ESPECE >> ;
ATTENDU QU'EN STATUANT AINSI SANS RECHERCHER SI LES ENGAGEMENTS LITIGIEUX QUI PREVOYAIENT UN CERTAIN NOMBRE D'AVANTAGES, ET POUR PLUSIEURS ANNEES EVENTUELLEMENT, AU PROFIT DE DAUBANAY, TANT QUE CELUI-CI, DU MOINS, RESTERAIT ACTIONNAIRE DE LA SOCIETE, N'AVAIENT PAS POUR EFFET DE LA GARANTIR, EN TANT QUE TEL, CONTRE TOUT RISQUE DE PERTE EVENTUELLE, LA COUR D'APPEL N'A PAS DONNE DE BASE LEGALE A SA DECISION;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 4 AVRIL 1979 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE LYON; REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRE ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL DE CHAMBERY.