With the case for withdrawal remedies made and critical comparative analysis of several jurisdictional variants conducted earlier in the book, Chapter VIII integrates insights from the theoretical and comparative analyses into a jurisdiction-neutral model withdrawal solution. This ‘Model Remedy’ gives effect to private ordering arrangements and offers judicially administered solutions where contract is absent or otherwise defective. Chapter VIII also explains the Model Remedy’s key features: a trichotomous classification of withdrawal grounds (fault, non-fault, and at will), and a combination of mandatory, sticky default, and default rules and standards differentiated by the grounds involved. Drawing on and improving upon existing legal regimes, the Model Remedy provides practical guidance on the design and implementation of calibrated withdrawal solutions responsive to a broad range of scenarios. It will be useful for legislators and judges seeking to address intracorporate conflicts in close corporations, and for legal practitioners drafting close corporation constitutions and shareholder agreements.

This chapter discusses the different categories of relations or connections that, in isolation or cumulatively, qualify as a means of control. This chapter adds a systematization of equity and nonequity modes of control to the existing corporate law literature. This ranges from traditional shareholding and share classes and contractual ties such as shareholder agreements and share lending contracts, to complex financial instruments, the significance of intermediated holdings, and to the role of participation on closed blockchain platforms and smart contracts governing the relationship between two or more companies. An important insight from the analysis described in this chapter is that a combined set of holdings can, due to its complex nature, lead to it running under the regulatory radar.