If you sell your business but remain a shareholder: how it can go seriously wrong

Contract Law, Corporate Law

9 September 2026

If you sell your business but remain a shareholder: how it can go seriously wrong

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

Imagine: you have spent years building your company, eventually sell it, but retain a minority stake. You believe the shareholders’ agreement will protect you if things go wrong later. But then the relationship with your fellow shareholders deteriorates, and that protection turns out to be nothing more than paper. A recent ruling by the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:1603) shows how quickly this can happen, and what lessons you, as an SME entrepreneur, can draw from it.

The background: an acquisition with a sting in its tail

The case concerns the founder of a large mental healthcare institution who had sold his company but still indirectly held 15% of the shares. As part of the acquisition, an indemnity had been agreed: the seller would bear the cost of any clawbacks from health insurers relating to revenue overruns from before the transaction. Those clawbacks did indeed materialise, after which the company ran into liquidity problems.

But the seller, now a minority shareholder, refused to comply with its indemnity obligation. A landlord affiliated with the seller subsequently filed for the bankruptcy of the operating company, owing to rent arrears that had arisen partly as a result of that same non-compliance. The institution thus became a pawn in a shareholder conflict, while hundreds of patients depended on it.

Ruling of the Enterprise Chamber: expulsion and the bad-leaver price

The other shareholders asked the Enterprise Chamber to order expulsion: a measure whereby a shareholder is compelled by the court to sell their shares because their conduct seriously harms the interests of the company. The minority shareholder tried to block this by pointing to the company’s own dispute-resolution mechanism in the shareholders’ agreement. Under the law, such a mechanism can indeed block recourse to the Enterprise Chamber, but only if that mechanism is complete.

That was the problem here. The agreement did include an obligation to offer (the shareholder had to offer up its shares), but no corresponding obligation for the others to purchase them. The other shareholders were therefore not obliged to actually buy those shares. Without a purchase obligation, transfer is not guaranteed, and the mechanism therefore did not meet the statutory requirements. Recourse to the Enterprise Chamber remained open.

On the merits, the ruling was strict. By deliberately failing to comply with the indemnity and subsequently filing for bankruptcy through an affiliated company, the shareholder acted in breach of the standards of reasonableness and fairness that shareholders must observe towards the company and towards each other.

For the price, the bad-leaver provision in the agreement applied: 20% of market value — an 80% discount on the actual value of the shares. The court was able to calculate the price itself using the valuation formula in the agreement and did not need to appoint an external expert.

Key lessons for SME entrepreneurs

This ruling contains a number of concrete lessons for SME entrepreneurs involved in an acquisition.

A watertight shareholders’ agreement is not a luxury. An obligation to offer without a corresponding obligation to purchase is only half an instrument. Make sure your agreement contains both, has a workable transfer period, and sets out a reasonable pricing standard. If any of these elements is missing, you effectively have no working mechanism of your own.

Understand your bad-leaver provisions before you sign. An 80% discount on actual value is not the exception; it is a real risk if you do not know what qualifies as bad-leaver conduct and what price consequences that carries.

Take indemnities seriously. For the buyer, an indemnity is crucial protection against risks from the company’s past. For the seller, it is a real financial obligation. Make sure the scope and limits are clearly set out.

Acquisitions are rarely as simple as they seem at signing. The period afterwards, especially if you remain a shareholder, calls for clear arrangements and legal guidance that looks beyond the closing date. This ruling is a reminder that half-hearted contracts can leave you in a position you never wanted to be in.

Do you need legal guidance in this respect? Feel free to contact the business lawyers at The Legal Company at info@thelegalcompany.nl or 020-3450152.

Blog by our corporate law expert mr Niels Terlouw.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.