Some examples of racially restrictive alliances remain in some countries, although they are generally no longer enforced. There may be cases where real estate still lists restrictive racist alliances to prevent minorities from buying real estate and from integrating the community. Such policies are no longer legal and should, if necessary, be challenged in court. This decision is interesting because it raises the possibility that restrictive agreements in a shareholder contract will forever prevent a shareholder working for a competing company. As long as the individual was a shareholder (and for twelve months after they ceased to be a shareholder), they would be limited in the type of work they could do, even if they had not worked for the company for a long time. It did not matter that they ceased to be employees and no longer had access to sensitive information, as the corresponding restriction was formulated to include any shareholder who had previously worked for the company. Restrictive alliances are particularly important in areas that need personal contact (for example. B recruitment) or expertise (for example. B technology). Investors in these companies need restrictive agreements to prevent their businesses from being undermined. Often, the person who is best placed to compete with a company is its founder, and investors in a new business will seek assurance that the founder will not just take their money and buy elsewhere. They can do this by including restrictive agreements in the founders` employment contract, but this requires the founder to remain on the company`s salary list, which they may not be willing to do.
Another option is to include restrictive agreements in the investment agreement itself or in a new shareholder pact. To the extent that restrictive agreements protect a legitimate interest in corporate ownership and are not unreasonably broad or unreasonable, it is very likely that the courts will think they are effective. However, given the importance of these restrictions in protecting the value of a business, it is important that they are well done. This is perhaps one of the best examples of the benefits of careful development. The Court of Justice`s decision on the duration highlights an important point that companies and salaried shareholders must respect, because, even in the case of mandatory transfer rules, there is no guarantee that there is a purchaser for the shares of a former employee, particularly in a small private company.