"Since when has shareholding between companies changing meant...

"Since when has shareholding between companies changing meant that contracts between the same companies can be classed as null and void."

The question is not asked correctly: In my opinion, it should be: If contracts exist between 2 unrelated companies, are they treated differently than a contract between 2 related companies where one is also the largest shareholder of the other?In every contract there is a so-called severability clause that allows a contract to be terminated under certain circumstances. However, if the contracting party is also the largest shareholder, it may be able to prevent this clause from being invoked. This obstacle has now probably been removed. At the same time, a new major shareholder with deep pockets and its own interests has probably joined the company. Will he owe the seller of his acquired shares any form of gratitude?Probably not. Business is business!I am therefore not pessimistic about tomorrow's trading day.