Deadlock is one of the most disruptive situations that can arise in a private company. When shareholders cannot reach agreement on a reserved matter — a decision that requires unanimous consent or a supermajority — the company is paralysed. Contracts cannot be signed, strategic decisions cannot be made, and key appointments cannot be confirmed.
Without a contractual mechanism to break the deadlock, the parties are left with two unsatisfactory options: expensive and uncertain court litigation, or allowing the business to deteriorate while the dispute festers. A well-drafted shareholders agreement anticipates this risk and provides a step-by-step resolution framework — from informal escalation through to a binding buy-sell mechanism that forces a resolution. This guide explains each mechanism, how they operate in South African practice, and how to choose the right approach for your structure.
What is a Deadlock?
A deadlock arises when shareholders are unable to pass a resolution on a matter that requires their approval, because the required level of consent cannot be achieved. This is distinct from ordinary disagreement — it is a structural inability to act.
Definition
A deadlock is the inability to pass a resolution on a reserved matter due to equal voting power or because a supermajority threshold cannot be met. In most shareholders agreements, certain decisions — such as appointing or removing directors, approving the annual budget, taking on material debt, or entering into significant contracts — are designated as "reserved matters" requiring unanimous or supermajority shareholder approval. If shareholders are equally divided, no resolution can be passed.
Consequences Without a Mechanism
Without a contractual deadlock-resolution mechanism, the consequences are severe:
- —Business paralysis: day-to-day decisions that require shareholder consent cannot be made, and the company effectively stops functioning strategically.
- —Board gridlock: if each shareholder has appointed equal numbers of directors, board resolutions are equally unpassable.
- —Urgent court applications: the aggrieved shareholder may seek urgent relief from the High Court, which is expensive, time-consuming, and produces an uncertain outcome. SA courts are generally reluctant to intervene in commercial disputes between shareholders and will not substitute their judgment for that of the shareholders on business decisions.
Why 50/50 Companies Are Most Vulnerable
Equal-shareholding companies face structural deadlock risk by design. With two shareholders each holding 50%, any reserved matter requiring more than a simple majority — or unanimous consent — cannot be passed if one shareholder votes against it.
The Structural Problem
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides that ordinary resolutions are passed by a simple majority of votes exercised — meaning that in a 50/50 company with two shareholders, one shareholder voting against a resolution defeats it. This is the default position, and shareholders agreements frequently make it worse by extending the list of matters requiring unanimous consent.
Common scenarios where 50/50 deadlock arises include: appointment or removal of the CEO or other key executives; approval of the annual business plan or budget; entering into a material contract (above a threshold value); taking on bank debt or providing security; issuing new shares or admitting a new shareholder; and disposing of a material asset. Each of these is a decision where the two shareholders may have genuinely different views — particularly when the relationship between them has deteriorated.
CEO Appointment
The two shareholders cannot agree on who should lead the business day-to-day. Neither can force the appointment through without the other's consent.
Major Contract
One shareholder wants to take on a large contract; the other believes the business lacks the capacity. The company cannot commit or decline.
Bank Debt
One shareholder wants to take on a loan to fund expansion; the other is risk-averse and refuses. Without a mechanism, the business is stuck.
Escalation Procedure (Step 1)
The first step in a well-structured deadlock resolution process is escalation — requiring the parties to engage directly at a senior level before invoking any formal mechanism. This recognises that most deadlocks arise from miscommunication, differing priorities, or incomplete information rather than genuine irreconcilable conflict.
Written Notice of Deadlock
Either shareholder may trigger the escalation process by delivering a formal written notice to the other, stating that a deadlock exists on a specified reserved matter. The notice should identify the matter in dispute, the resolution that cannot be passed, and the date on which the deadlock arose.
Cooling-Off Period
On receipt of the notice, a cooling-off period of 7 to 14 days typically begins. During this time, no legal proceedings may be instituted and no further votes may be called on the deadlocked matter. The purpose is to allow emotions to settle and to create space for rational commercial discussion.
Good Faith Negotiation
The senior representatives or founders of each shareholder must meet — in person or virtually — and attempt in good faith to resolve the deadlock. This is not a formality: SA courts have given content to good faith obligations in commercial contracts and a party that refuses to engage meaningfully risks being found in breach of the SHA.
Resolution or Escalation
If the parties reach agreement, the resolution is documented and the reserved matter is voted on. If the cooling-off period expires without resolution, the SHA requires the parties to proceed to the next step — typically mediation. This automatic escalation prevents either party from simply refusing to engage and holding the business hostage indefinitely.
In practice, most deadlocks resolve at the escalation stage. The formality of a written notice and a structured meeting often prompts the parties to engage more seriously than they would in informal discussions. Where the deadlock is genuinely commercial rather than personal, the cooling-off and escalation process provides sufficient structure for a pragmatic resolution.
Mediation (Step 2)
If escalation fails, the SHA should require the parties to submit the deadlock to mediation before invoking a binding buy-sell mechanism. Mediation is a structured, confidential, non-binding process facilitated by a neutral third party.
How Mediation Works
Either party may request mediation in writing after the escalation period expires without resolution. The SHA should specify the appointing body — typically the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA) or an agreed mediator. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator within five business days, AFSA (or another nominated body) appoints one.
The mediator facilitates discussions between the parties but has no power to impose a decision. The process is confidential and without prejudice — nothing said in mediation may be used in subsequent litigation or arbitration.
Timeframe and Outcome
Mediation should be completed within 30 days of the mediator's appointment, unless the parties agree to an extension. This timeframe prevents the process from being used as a delaying tactic.
If mediation resolves the deadlock, the settlement is recorded in a written agreement signed by both parties, which becomes binding under the SHA. If mediation fails — or if either party refuses to participate — the SHA should automatically trigger the binding contractual mechanism (typically a Texas shootout or similar buy-sell provision).
Texas Shootout (Forced Buy-Sell)
The Texas shootout — also called a "forced buy-sell" or "buy-sell clause" — is the most widely used contractual deadlock-resolution mechanism in South African shareholders agreements. It is an elegant solution to the valuation problem: by allowing either party to be the buyer or the seller at the same price, it creates a powerful incentive for the triggering shareholder to name a fair price.
Triggering the Mechanism
Either shareholder may trigger the Texas shootout by delivering a written notice to the other stating a price per share at which they are willing to deal. The notice must be unconditional and must specify the price per share clearly. The triggering shareholder does not know at this stage whether they will be the buyer or the seller.
The Other Shareholder's Election
Within 30 days of receiving the notice, the other shareholder must elect in writing to either: (a) purchase the triggering shareholder's shares at the stated price per share, or (b) sell their own shares to the triggering shareholder at the same price per share. The election is irrevocable once made.
The Pricing Incentive
The genius of the Texas shootout is the pricing incentive it creates. If the triggering shareholder names a price that is too low, the other party will elect to buy the triggering shareholder's shares at that price — effectively acquiring the business at a discount. If the triggering shareholder names a price that is too high, the other party will elect to sell, forcing the triggering shareholder to pay a premium. This dynamic compels the triggering shareholder to name as fair a price as possible.
Completion of the Transaction
Once the election is made, the transaction must be completed within 60 days. The SHA should specify the mechanics of completion — execution of a share transfer agreement, delivery of share certificates or electronic transfer, payment of the purchase price, and resignation of any directors appointed by the exiting shareholder.
Safeguards
A well-drafted Texas shootout clause includes safeguards: a financing period (allowing the buyer to arrange financing before the election period expires), a solvency condition (the transaction does not complete if it would render the company insolvent), and a mechanism for what happens if the elected buyer defaults on payment (typically the other party becomes entitled to purchase at a reduced price or to claim damages).
Practical note: The main risk in a Texas shootout is financing. The shareholder who elects to buy may be unable to raise sufficient funds within the 60-day completion period. The SHA should address this expressly — either by requiring the triggering shareholder to have financing in place before triggering, by extending the completion period where financing is genuinely in progress, or by allowing the other party to terminate and proceed on different terms if the buyer defaults.
Russian Roulette
The Russian roulette clause is similar in concept to the Texas shootout but differs in one critical respect: the shareholder who names the price has no choice about which side of the transaction they will occupy. They must complete whichever transaction the other party chooses.
How It Differs from a Texas Shootout
In a Texas shootout, the triggering shareholder names a price and then waits to find out whether they are buying or selling. In a Russian roulette, the triggering shareholder offers to buy or sell at a specified price, but the responding party decides which it will be — and the triggering shareholder is bound by that decision. The triggering shareholder has no election: they must complete the transaction on whichever terms the other shareholder chooses.
This creates an even stronger incentive for the naming party to price fairly, because they cannot influence whether they end up as buyer or seller. However, it also exposes the naming party to significant risk — if they name a price expecting to buy, the other party may elect to sell to them at a price the naming party has not adequately financed.
Use in South African Practice
The Russian roulette is less commonly used in South African shareholders agreements than the Texas shootout, primarily because it is considered more aggressive and can permanently damage the relationship between shareholders even before the deadlock is resolved. It is more commonly seen in smaller companies where the relationship has already broken down completely and the parties simply want a clean exit mechanism. For most structures, the Texas shootout — which preserves some element of choice for the triggering party — is the preferred approach.
Shotgun Clause
The shotgun clause is a variation on the forced buy-sell mechanisms. Under a shotgun clause, any shareholder may at any time — not only upon deadlock — trigger a compulsory buy-out by naming a price. The other shareholder must accept the price: they must either buy or sell at that price and have no other options.
When a Shotgun Clause is Used
Unlike a Texas shootout or Russian roulette — which are triggered only upon a specified deadlock — a shotgun clause can be invoked at will. This makes it a powerful provision but also a potentially destabilising one: a well-capitalised shareholder can trigger it at any time, confident that the other shareholder (who may lack liquidity) will be forced to sell.
For this reason, shotgun clauses are best suited to structures where both shareholders have similar financial resources and neither has a significant liquidity advantage over the other. Where there is a material financial imbalance between shareholders, a shotgun clause can be weaponised and should be used with care — or avoided in favour of a deadlock-triggered Texas shootout.
Valuation-Based Mechanisms
Some shareholders agreements opt for a valuation-based approach to deadlock resolution rather than an adversarial bidding mechanism. Under this approach, an independent expert is appointed to determine the fair value of the shares, and the exiting shareholder's interest is bought out at that value.
Appointment of Independent Valuer
The SHA specifies who may appoint the valuer — typically an agreed accounting firm, or the President of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) or another professional body if the parties cannot agree. The valuer acts as an expert, not an arbitrator: their determination is final and binding on both parties (subject to manifest error).
Valuation Methodology
The SHA should specify the valuation basis — whether on a going concern basis, an earnings multiple, a net asset value basis, or another methodology appropriate to the company's business. Without a specified methodology, the valuer has broad discretion, which can produce unpredictable outcomes. Agreeing the methodology upfront reduces the scope for dispute about the valuation process.
Buy-Out at Valuation Price
Once the valuation is determined, the SHA must specify which shareholder buys and which sells. This is typically resolved either by agreement between the parties once the valuation is known, or by a predetermined rule — for example, the shareholder who triggered the deadlock process may be required to sell, or the parties may bid for the right to buy once the valuation price is set.
Advantages and Disadvantages
A valuation-based mechanism produces a fair price determined by an independent expert rather than by the strategic positioning of the parties. This is particularly appropriate for long-term business partners who want a commercially sensible exit rather than an adversarial auction. However, the process is slower than a Texas shootout (valuations can take 30–60 days) and more expensive, since professional valuation fees are material. It also does not resolve the question of which party exits — only what price is paid.
Winding Up as Last Resort
Where no contractual mechanism resolves the deadlock, a shareholder may apply to the High Court for the winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds under section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. This is the mechanism of absolute last resort — it destroys value and should only be considered where the relationship has broken down irretrievably and no other solution is available.
Legal Basis
Section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act provides that the court may order the winding up of a company if it is just and equitable to do so. South African courts have confirmed that shareholder deadlock — where the relationship of mutual trust and confidence between shareholders has broken down and the company can no longer function — can constitute just and equitable grounds for winding up: Moosa NO v Nasdaq Freight (Pty) Ltd is the leading authority for the proposition that deadlock and breakdown of the underlying substratum of a quasi-partnership justifies a just and equitable winding up.
The Court's Approach
The court does not grant winding-up orders lightly. It will consider whether: the applicant has come to court with clean hands (i.e., has not contributed to the deadlock); there are alternative remedies available; the winding up would be prejudicial to creditors or other stakeholders; and whether a buy-out at fair value would be a more proportionate remedy. In practice, courts frequently order a buy-out rather than a liquidation, even where liquidation is sought — the court has a broad discretion to grant the order that best serves justice in the circumstances.
Why It Should Be Avoided
A just and equitable winding up typically realises far less value for shareholders than a going-concern sale. Liquidators' fees, legal costs, and the disruption of the liquidation process erode value significantly. Employees lose their jobs, customer relationships are severed, and the business goodwill is destroyed. For a company that has genuine going-concern value, winding up is almost always the worst possible outcome for both shareholders — which is precisely why having a contractual deadlock mechanism in place matters.
Which Mechanism to Use?
The right deadlock mechanism depends on the nature of the business, the financial resources of the shareholders, and the relationship between the parties. The comparison below summarises the key features of each approach.
| Mechanism | Best For | Risk | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Escalation / mediation | Any deadlock | None (non-binding) | Low |
| Texas shootout | 50/50 companies | Financing risk | Medium |
| Russian roulette | Smaller companies | Aggressive, may harm relationship | Medium |
| Independent valuation | Long-term partners | Time-consuming | Medium–High |
| Winding up | Last resort only | Destroys value | Very High |
For most South African private companies, the recommended approach is a cascading mechanism: escalation to the founders (7–14 days), followed by mediation (30 days), followed by a Texas shootout with a financing period. This provides multiple opportunities for a commercial resolution while ensuring that a binding outcome is always available if the parties cannot agree.
Drafting Tips
A deadlock clause that is poorly drafted is nearly as bad as no deadlock clause at all. Ambiguity about what constitutes a deadlock, who can trigger the mechanism, and what the consequences of non-compliance are will result in the same expensive litigation the clause was meant to avoid.
Define "Deadlock" Precisely
The SHA must specify exactly what constitutes a deadlock. Does it require a formal vote to fail? How many times must the vote fail before the deadlock mechanism is triggered? Is a deadlock only triggered on reserved matters, or also on board decisions? Ambiguity here is a source of litigation. The definition should be specific: "a resolution on a reserved matter that has been proposed at a duly convened shareholders meeting and has failed to achieve the required level of approval on two consecutive occasions, with the second meeting held not less than [10] business days after the first."
Specify Escalation Timeframes
Every step of the deadlock process must have a defined timeframe: days for written notice, days for cooling off, days for escalation meeting, days for mediation, days for election, days for completion. Open-ended timeframes allow a party acting in bad faith to delay indefinitely. Hard deadlines with automatic escalation prevent this.
Include a Financing Period
Where the mechanism is a Texas shootout, the SHA must address financing. Allow the electing buyer a reasonable period — typically 30 days — to arrange financing before the transaction completes. Specify what happens if the buyer cannot finance: does the seller become entitled to buy at a reduced price? Does the triggering shareholder retain their shares? Does the non-triggering shareholder become entitled to buy at a discount? Each outcome must be expressly addressed.
Address Default by the Buyer
If the elected buyer fails to complete the transaction, the SHA needs a clear consequence. The most commercially sensible outcome is typically that the other party (the defaulting party's counterparty) becomes entitled to acquire the defaulting buyer's shares at the same price, on the same terms, with a short additional completion period. This prevents the mechanism from being gamed by an elected buyer who simply refuses to complete.
Limit to Truly Material Matters
Consider whether the Texas shootout should be triggered by any deadlock on any reserved matter, or only by deadlocks on genuinely material matters. Triggering a forced buy-sell over a minor disagreement on a budget line item is commercially disproportionate. Limiting the mechanism to deadlocks on core matters — appointment or removal of the CEO, approval of the business plan, taking on debt above a material threshold — preserves the mechanism for when it is truly needed and prevents it from being weaponised over trivial disputes.
50/50 Structures — Are They Always a Bad Idea?
The instinctive reaction of many corporate lawyers to a 50/50 shareholding structure is that it is inherently problematic and should be avoided. This view is overstated. Whether a 50/50 structure is appropriate depends entirely on the specific circumstances.
When 50/50 Works Well
Equal shareholding can work very well where the founders have genuinely aligned interests, complementary skills, and a shared vision for the business. Many highly successful South African businesses have been built on 50/50 partnerships. The structure reflects equal contribution and equal stake, which can be commercially appropriate and personally important to the founders.
The key is that the SHA must be comprehensive enough to deal with the structural risk. A 50/50 company with a well-drafted SHA — including a clear deadlock mechanism — is far more robust than a majority-controlled company with no SHA at all.
When to Reconsider
A 50/50 structure should be reconsidered — or approached with particular care — where: one shareholder has meaningfully greater financial resources than the other (creating an asymmetric Texas shootout risk); the shareholders have significantly different risk appetites or time horizons; the company is in a fast-moving industry where decisions need to be made quickly and consensus is difficult to achieve; or the personal relationship between the shareholders is already under strain.
In these situations, a 51/49 structure — with appropriate minority protections built into the SHA — may be a more workable arrangement than a 50/50 split.
The Bottom Line
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides no default deadlock-resolution mechanism for private companies. If shareholders cannot agree and have not provided for this in their shareholders agreement, the law offers them no easy solution. The obligation to plan for deadlock rests entirely on the parties and their attorneys at the time the business is structured. A few additional pages in a shareholders agreement — at a fraction of the cost of future litigation — is among the most commercially valuable investments that equal-shareholding business partners can make.
Need a Deadlock Mechanism in Your Shareholders Agreement?
MJ Kotze Inc drafts and reviews shareholders agreements for private companies across South Africa. We structure deadlock provisions that are practical, enforceable, and commercially appropriate for your specific structure.
Speak to an Attorney