# kaal:claim:3017612-034

**Claim.** Absent explicit statutory authorization, many courts have refused to enforce veto provisions contained in shareholder agreements, which is why such provisions should be implemented through charter or bylaw amendment.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** evidenced

**Holds when.**

- states without statutes specifically authorizing shareholder control agreements
- veto or supermajority provisions

**Source quote.**

> explicit statutory authorization, many courts have refused to enforce veto provisions in shareholders' agreements.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Shareholder Agreements - National Report of the United States of America* (2017), IV.1 Legal Effects on the Corporation, page 17

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Shareholder Agreements - National Report of the United States of America (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3017612

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `33821db406f92efbe1698fbaed37687595c13b7ce5463b4a879df679fd4af1ac` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202017%20-%20Shareholder%20Agreements%20-%20National%20Report%20of%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America.pdf

**Failure mode.** unauthorized-veto-provision-unenforceable  (family: smart-contract-bug-and-exploit)

**Topics.** governance-design

**Keywords.** veto-provisions, supermajority, enforceability, charter-amendment

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.