Skip to main content
← Back to U Definitions

Unanimous action clauses

What Are Unanimous Action Clauses?

Unanimous action clauses are specific provisions within corporate governing documents, such as bylaws or shareholder agreements, that require the affirmative consent of all parties for certain decisions to be enacted. These clauses are a critical component of corporate governance, particularly in private companies and closely held corporations, where they ensure that all stakeholders have a voice in significant matters. While formal meetings are typically used for corporate decision-making, unanimous action clauses often enable actions to be taken through written consent, streamlining processes for routine or urgent approvals without the need for a physical gathering.12, 13, 14

History and Origin

The concept of requiring collective agreement for significant decisions has roots in various forms of early organizational structures, predating modern corporations. As corporate law evolved, particularly for smaller, private enterprises, the need for mechanisms to protect the interests of all owners became apparent. Unlike large public companies with dispersed ownership and formal voting rights structures, closely held businesses often resemble partnerships where each owner expects a direct say in pivotal strategic and operational choices. Unanimous action clauses, frequently embedded within shareholder agreements, formalize this expectation, providing a contractual framework for shared control. Canadian corporate statutes, for instance, permit unanimous shareholder agreements to shift management powers from the board of directors to the shareholders, effectively creating an "incorporated partnership" where collective consent dictates business affairs.10, 11

Key Takeaways

  • Unanimous action clauses demand the full agreement of all specified parties for a decision to proceed.
  • They are most commonly found in shareholder agreements of private and closely held companies.
  • These clauses provide strong protection for minority shareholders by giving them veto power over critical decisions.
  • While promoting consensus, they can also lead to organizational deadlock if agreement cannot be reached.
  • Unanimous written consent can streamline decision-making for routine matters, bypassing formal meetings.

Interpreting Unanimous Action Clauses

Interpreting unanimous action clauses requires a precise understanding of the corporate documents in which they are embedded, such as bylaws or custom agreements. These clauses define which specific actions necessitate unanimous approval, which could range from altering the company's corporate structure, approving significant capital expenditures, admitting new partners, or selling the business. The presence of such a clause means that any single party empowered by it can effectively veto a proposed action, regardless of the support from others. This grants significant protective power, particularly to minority shareholders, who might otherwise be outvoted on critical issues that could adversely affect their investment.8, 9

Hypothetical Example

Consider "Tech Innovators Inc.," a small startup with three co-founders, Alice, Bob, and Carol, each holding an equal share of the company's equity. Their shareholder agreement includes a unanimous action clause stating that any decision regarding significant equity financing or a merger and acquisition must receive the unanimous written consent of all shareholders.

Scenario: A large venture capital firm offers a substantial investment in exchange for a 20% stake in Tech Innovators Inc. Alice and Bob are enthusiastic about the offer, seeing it as a path to rapid expansion. However, Carol is hesitant, concerned that the terms would dilute their control too much and shift the company's long-term vision. Because of the unanimous action clause, even if Alice and Bob, together representing two-thirds of the ownership, agree, Carol's single "no" vote means the investment cannot proceed unless her concerns are addressed and she ultimately provides her consent. This situation forces the co-founders to engage in further negotiation and compromise, ensuring that the final decision aligns with the collective vision of all initial investors.

Practical Applications

Unanimous action clauses are most commonly applied in contexts where maintaining complete control and protecting every investor's interest is paramount. They are prevalent in:

  • Small Businesses and Startups: Often, founders of a new venture want to ensure that fundamental decisions require everyone's agreement, especially when personal capital and significant effort are at stake. This prevents any single founder or a simple majority from making radical changes without full buy-in.
  • Joint Ventures and Partnerships: In joint ventures, where two or more entities collaborate on a specific project or business, unanimous action clauses ensure that strategic moves are mutually agreed upon, reflecting the shared risk and investment.
  • Family Businesses: To preserve family control and values, such clauses can be used to ensure that significant decisions, such as selling key assets or bringing in non-family management, require the consensus of all family shareholders.
  • Protection of Minority Interests: These clauses serve as a powerful tool for minority shareholders, providing them with veto rights over decisions that could otherwise be forced upon them by majority owners. This protection is crucial for ensuring fairness and preventing oppression of smaller investors.5, 6, 7

While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) primarily regulates shareholder voting in public companies, emphasizing transparency and voting rights for broad investor bases, unanimous action clauses serve a similar protective function in the private domain by giving every party a decisive voice.4

Limitations and Criticisms

While providing strong protection for individual interests, unanimous action clauses have significant limitations. The primary criticism is their potential to lead to deadlock. If any single party with veto power refuses to consent, a company may be unable to make necessary decisions, even routine ones, potentially paralyzing operations, hindering growth, or preventing crucial equity financing. This risk increases with the number of parties required to give consent.

Another drawback is the potential for increased liability for shareholders. In jurisdictions where unanimous shareholder agreements transfer powers from the board of directors to shareholders, those shareholders may inadvertently assume director-level responsibilities and associated liabilities that they would typically be shielded from in a standard corporate structure.2, 3

Furthermore, unanimous action clauses can complicate bringing in new investors or selling the company, as every existing shareholder must agree, which can deter potential buyers or lead to prolonged negotiations. As some observers note, requiring unanimous consent for all decisions can make a business unwieldy and slow to adapt, especially in fast-paced markets.1

Unanimous Action Clauses vs. Majority Voting

The fundamental difference between unanimous action clauses and majority voting lies in the threshold required for a decision to pass.

  • Unanimous Action Clauses: These clauses demand that all specified parties, typically all shareholders or all directors, provide their affirmative consent for a particular action. Even a single dissenting vote prevents the action from moving forward. This grants a powerful veto right to every individual involved, ensuring that no decision can be made against their will. It is designed for complete consensus and individual protection.
  • Majority Voting: This is the standard decision-making mechanism in most organizations, particularly public companies. It requires a simple majority (typically more than 50%) of votes cast to pass a resolution. In some cases, a supermajority voting threshold (e.g., two-thirds or three-quarters) may be required for certain significant actions, but it still falls short of unanimity. Majority voting prioritizes efficiency and the will of the larger group, allowing decisions to proceed even if some individuals oppose them.

The choice between these methods depends heavily on the organizational goals and the desired balance between individual protection and operational agility.

FAQs

What types of decisions typically require unanimous action?

Decisions often requiring unanimous action include amendments to articles of incorporation or bylaws, approval of major acquisitions or sales of assets, significant capital injections, changes in the nature of the business, or the admission of new shareholders. The specific matters are always outlined in the governing agreement.

Can unanimous action clauses be circumvented?

Generally, no. A valid unanimous action clause legally binds all parties to its terms. Attempting to circumvent it would be a breach of contract. However, parties might negotiate an amendment to the clause itself (which often requires unanimity to amend), or they might agree to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms if a deadlock occurs.

Are unanimous action clauses common in publicly traded companies?

No, unanimous action clauses are rare in publicly traded companies. Public companies typically have a large, dispersed shareholder base, making unanimous consent impractical. Their corporate governance frameworks rely on majority or supermajority voting to facilitate efficient decision-making and uphold fiduciary duty to the broader shareholder base. They are primarily a feature of closely held private companies.

How do unanimous action clauses affect attracting new investment?

Unanimous action clauses can complicate attracting new investment, especially from venture capitalists or private equity firms. New investors typically seek clear paths for decision-making and exit strategies. A unanimous consent requirement can create concerns about potential deadlocks or a single shareholder's ability to impede critical strategic moves, which might make the investment less attractive or lead to more complex negotiations during due diligence.