Voting agreements offer several advantages over proxy limited companies. First, voting agreements are easier to conclude and wait for, as they should not be submitted to society and should not be renewed every ten years. In addition, the implementation of voting agreements may be less costly, becauase administrators may charge a fee for their services. In addition, owners are allowed to retain the entire ownership of the shares under a voting contract. A voting agreement is an agreement between shareholders to choose their shares in a certain way. Instead of delegating voting power to a third party, as is the case with an agent, each shareholder commits, in a voting contract, to respect the agreement. If the contract is effectively executed, any party may sue for the practical performance of the contract if another party refuses to comply with the contract. If an action is successful, the court orders the parties to vote on the shares in accordance with the voting agreement. Unlike proxy limited companies, voting agreements may apply for any length of time and should not be submitted to the company.
According to Section 7.31 of the RMBCA, a voting agreement is valid if three conditions are met: the second contribution of the article is empirical. To the extent that you exist, the popular opinion about shareholder agreements is that they are common in private companies, but private companies are the dark matter of the corporate universe – important, but difficult to study empirically. On the other hand, in state-owned enterprises, it is assumed that shareholder agreements play a trivial or non-existent role. In corporate democracy, the standard system for electing directors votes, but shareholders can vote by contract. In private companies, shareholders routinely do so by using shareholder pacts – contracts between company owners – to negotiate directly directorships and other control rights. In recent years, litigation over these agreements has intensified in Delaware courts. In late 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling on whether the parties to a shareholders` pact were jointly a majority shareholder and did not do so in this case.