According to the currently effective Company Law of the PRC (the “Company Law”), there are two types of companies that can be established:
Prior to 2020, companies with foreign investments were not regulated by the Company Law, but by three separated legislations. These stipulated the following three specialised types of companies foreign investors could use:
However, the National People’s Congress ‒ the supreme legislative body in China – promulgated the Foreign Investment Law in March 2019. When the Foreign Investment Law officially came into effect in January 2020, the above-mentioned three legislations were simultaneously abolished.
According to the Foreign Investment Law, foreign investors can now enjoy national treatment when establishing companies in China. This means that now only LLCs and companies limited by shares can be used by foreign investors – no matter whether the company is wholly foreign-owned or a joint venture with domestic investors. Nowadays, foreign investors generally use LLCs because of their clear legal responsibilities, flexible capital structure, relatively simple corporate governance as well as flexible equity transfer.
Under the currently effective Company Law and other relevant laws and regulations in China, a company may issue two classes of shares, ordinary shares and class shares.
General shareholders’ rights could be found in Article 4, Article 57, Article 144 and Article 210 of the Company Law. For more details, please refer to 2.8 Shareholder Approval, as well as5. Dividends, 6. Shareholders’ Rights as Regards Directors and Auditors, 7. Corporate Governance Arrangements, 8. Controlling Company, 9. Insolvency and 10. Shareholders’ Remedies.
The variation of shareholders’ rights may involve the classification, proportion, transfer, etc, of the shares. More specifically, such variation may require a resolution from a shareholders’ meeting or general meeting as a prerequisite to the aforementioned change. Articles of association may also be required to be amended and new capital-contribution certificates must be issued to shareholders. Proper registration procedures by the market regulation authority are also required.
According to the Company Law, there is no minimum share capital requirement for LLCs or companies limited by shares. However, in practice, minimum share capital requirements are imposed on companies in certain industries, such as financial companies and insurance companies.
According to the Company Law, LLCs and companies limited by shares are both subject to requirements on the minimum number of shareholders. However, only companies limited by shares are subject to some degree of requirement for their shareholders to be resident in China.
Shareholders’ agreements or joint venture agreements are often used in private companies, particularly in LLCs or private companies limited by shares. These agreements help to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the parties, reducing the potential for ambiguity to arise.
Private companies, owing to their diverse and flexible nature, need these agreements more than ever to regulate corporate governance and define the interests of all parties.
Typical provisions in shareholders’ agreements and joint venture agreements include:
Such agreements are usually confidential and are generally not required to be filed with the market regulation authority or made public, except for special requirements in certain regions or industries.
A company limited by shares is required by law to convene AGMs and should notify each shareholder at least 20 days in advance of the time and place of the meeting and the matters to be discussed. The period of notice must not be shortened. For LLCs, there is no compulsory requirement to convene AGMs, but shareholders can make such arrangements in the company’s articles of association.
Article 59 of the Company Law specifies the authorities exercised by the shareholders’ meeting or AGM. Matters usually discussed and approved by shareholders’ meetings mainly include:
Aside from the annual shareholders’ meeting or AGM, the company can also convene extraordinary shareholders’ meetings or general meetings in certain special circumstances.
Notices given of shareholders’ meetings or general meetings other than AGMs is similar to the notice given of AGMs, which includes the time and place of the meeting, the matters to be discussed at the meeting, or an explanation of the reason for convening the meeting. For a company limited by shares, whether it is an annual shareholders’ meeting or an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting, the notice period is mandatory provision of the law and must not be shortened at will.
Article 114 of the Company Law stipulates that a shareholders’ meeting or AGM is convened by the board of directors and presided over by the chair of the board of directors. It goes on to stipulate that:
if the chair of the board of directors cannot or will not carry out their duties, the meeting shall be presided over by the vice-chair of the board of directors;
If shareholderswho ‒ individually or collectively ‒ hold more than 10% of the shares of the company propose to hold an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting, the board of directors and board of supervisors should decide whether to hold an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting within ten days of receipt of such proposal and reply to the shareholders in writing. Therefore, only when all the preceding persons or entities cannot carry out their duties to convene such shareholders’ meeting, can the shareholders all convene and hold a shareholders’ meeting by themselves.
Notices of the shareholders’ meeting or AGM should be issued to all shareholders. Shareholders are entitled to:
Article 24 of the Company Law stipulates that shareholders’ meetings and voting can be held by means of electronic communication, unless otherwise provided in the articles of association. Therefore, if the articles of association of the company do not impose any prohibition or restriction, shareholders’ meetings can be held virtually or remotely.
The Company Law does not impose mandatory requirements regarding the number of shareholders to attend shareholders’ meetings. It only sets forth requirement regarding the proportion of votes that can be cast when a shareholders’ meeting is making a resolution.
Each share held by shareholders attending shareholders’ meetings is entitled to one vote, except in the case of shareholders holding other classes of shares or where special arrangements were made in the articles of association and shareholders’ agreements.
Shareholders individually or collectively holding more than 1% of the company’s shares may submit a written bill (“interim bill”) to the board of directors for discussion at the shareholders’ meeting or AGM ten days before its convening. For more details regarding the interim bill, please refer to 2.10 Shareholders’ Rights Relating to the Business of a Meeting.
According to Article 116 of the Company Law, resolutions of shareholders’ meetings or AGMs can be divided into ordinary and special resolutions.
Shareholders approving the company’s matters through votes during the company’s shareholders’ meetings. According to Article 59 and Article 116 of the Company Law, the shareholders’ meeting or AGM of a company shall exercise the following functions:
General matters must be passed by affirmative votes representing more than half of the voting rights of the shareholders attending the shareholders’ meeting. However, as mentioned in 2.7 Types of Resolutions and Thresholds, resolutions on the amendment of the articles of association, increase or decrease of the registered capital, or the merger, division, dissolution or change of the company’s corporate form must be passed by affirmative votes representing more than two-thirds of the voting rights of the shareholders attending the shareholders’ meeting.
Shareholders of the company can make other arrangements in the articles of association for other matters to be decided or approved by the shareholders’ meeting and stipulate the percentage required for the decision or approval.
Voting requirements for shareholders in shareholders’ meetings or AGMs are stipulated in Article 24, Article 65, Article 117 and Article 118 of the Company Law, as follows.
According to Article 115 of the Company Law, shareholders have the right to call for a shareholders’ meeting or AGM to discuss and vote on a specific issue.
As mentioned in 2.6 Quorum, Voting Requirements and Proposal of Resolutions, shareholders individually or collective holding more than 1% of the company’s shares may submit an interim bill to the board of directors for discussion at the shareholders’ meeting or AGM ten days before its convening.
The interim bill shall focus on a specific issue and specify the issue’s subject matter. Furthermore, the contents of such interim bill must comply with the provisions of laws, administrative regulations or the articles of association and be within the scope of the shareholders’ meeting’s duties.
However, where the company publicly issues shares, the notice must be made in the form of announcement. The shareholders’ meeting must not make resolutions on matters not included in the notice, meaning that shareholders of public companies have no right to require a specific issue to be considered through the submission of an interim bill.
Shareholders can challenge resolutions passed at a shareholders’ meeting or AGM according to Article 26 and Article 89 of the Company Law, as follows.
If the shareholders and the company fail to reach any share transfer and acquisition agreement within 60 days from the date on which the resolution is made at the shareholders’ meeting, the shareholders may institute legal proceedings in a court of law within 90 days from the date on which the resolution is made at the shareholders’ meeting.
According to the Company Law and other relevant legislations and regulations, institutional shareholders and other shareholder groups generally enjoy the same rights as the individual shareholders. No special rights or powers are granted to institutional shareholders and shareholder groups by laws and regulations.
Generally speaking, institutional shareholder and other shareholder groups can only influence and/or monitor a company’s actions by exercising rights and powers provided in the Company Law and the company’s articles of association. However, a major institutional investor or a large and influential group of shareholders can always negotiate with the company to gain some degree of preferential treatment, rights and powers, which should be rectified through a shareholders’ resolution before coming into effect.
China’s Company Law does not specifically provide regulations on shareholding through nominees and there is no law or regulation regarding the rights and powers of the nominee. However, according to the mainstream in practice and judicial decisions, nominees shall have neither interests nor rights in the shares they hold for the shareholders and they should exercise powers and rights as the shareholder authorised. When the nominees receive any information related to the matters being voted on, they should convey a message to shareholders as soon as possible and vote at the shareholders’ direction.
Shareholders are strongly advised to execute written agreements with nominees to specify rights and obligations for both parties, particularly the nominees’ scope of entrusted powers and rights and the nominees’ default and indemnification liability when such entrusted powers and rights are misused in ways that are detrimental towards shareholders.
According to China’s Company Law, shareholders are allowed to pass a written resolution without holding a shareholders’ meeting or AGM. According to Article 59(3) of the Company Law, with regard to the matters that the shareholders are entitled to adopt resolutions concerning at the shareholders’ meeting or AGM, the resolutions may be made directly without convening the meeting – provided that all shareholders agree on the resolved matter without any dissent. All shareholders must sign on the resolution document or affix their official seals to it.
Under China’s Company Law, only shareholders of LLCs enjoy pre-emption rights when the companies issue new shares. Shareholders of a company limited by shares do not naturally enjoy such right.
According to Article 227 of the Company Law, when an LLC increases its registered capital, its shareholders will ‒ under the same conditions ‒ have the pre-emptive right to subscribe for the increased capital in proportion to their contributed capital of the company, with the exception that all shareholders agree not to subscribe for the increased capital on a pre-emptive basis in proportion to their contributed capital.
However, when a company limited by shares issues new shares to increase its registered capital, its shareholders shall not enjoy the pre-emption right to subscribe for the increased shares – unless such matter is otherwise specified in the company’s articles of association or determined by a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting or AGM.
Procedures and restrictions in respect of share transfer and disposal may vary in accordance with the type of company under China’s Company Law, as follows.
Other shareholders shall enjoy the pre-emptive right to subscribe and purchase the transferred shares under the same conditions listed in the written notification.
Under China’s Company Law, shareholders are entitled to provide security interest with their shares, as the shares are regarded as the properties of the shareholders. According to Article 160 of the Company Law, if the shares of a company limited by shares are pledged within the period during which transfer or disposal is prohibited or limited by relevant laws and regulations, the pledgee must not exercise its rights of pledge within the period.
Under China’s currently effective laws and regulations, shareholders’ obligations to disclose interests are limited to listed companies. According to Article 41 and Article 42 of the Measures for the Management of Information Disclosure of Listed Companies and Article 13 of the Measures for the Management of Listed Companies Acquisition, shareholders’ disclosure obligations are listed as follows.
Under China’s currently effective laws and regulations, only a listed company can cancel shares after issue, as private companies do not publicly issue shares. According to CSRC’s Listed Companies Share Repurchase Rules and relevant regulations, a listed company can buy back and cancel part of its shares for the following reasons:
According to Article 162 of the Company Law, a company shall not be permitted to buy back its own shares unless one of the following situations applies:
If the company intends to buy back shares where there is a decrease in the company’s registered capital or there is a merger with another company holding shares in the company, it will be subject to a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting. If the company intends to buy back shares to use for the ESOP or equity incentive plans, convert issued corporate bonds into shares, or maintain the company’s value and shareholders’ interests, it may be subject to a resolution passed by the board of directors in a meeting that more than two-thirds of the directors attend, according to the articles of association of the company or as authorised by the shareholders’ meeting.
If a listed company is to buy back its own shares, it should disclose relevant information to the public according to China’s Securities Law. If a listed company intends to buy back shares to use for the ESOP or equity incentive plans, convert issued corporate bonds into shares, or maintain the company’s value and shareholders’ interests, such buyback should be conducted through a public and centralised trading process.
In accordance with Articles 210 and 212 of the Company Law, after the company has made up its losses and made allocations to its common reserves, it may pay dividends to its shareholders, as follows.
If a resolution to distribute the company’s profits is passed at the shareholders’ meeting or AGM, the board of directors must carry out the distribution within six months of the date of such resolution.
In accordance with Article 59 and Article 71 of the Company Law, the shareholders’ meeting or AGM is entitled to elect and change directors. The election must be adopted by affirmative votes representing more than half of the voting rights held by the shareholders attending that meeting.
The shareholders’ meeting or AGM may resolve to remove a director, and such removal will be effective on the date of such resolution. If a director is removed prior to the expiry of their term of office without any proper cause, the director may request compensation from the company.
Shareholders are allowed to object to a director’s decision or request that the director takes actions.
The criteria for objections or requests usually include:
The process required to file objections or requests usually includes:
According to the currently effective Company Law, shareholders have the “right to know”, through which shareholders are allowed to obtain information about the company’s financial condition. However, shareholders usually do not have the direct power to appoint or remove the company’s auditor. Shareholders can express their dissatisfaction with the auditor’s performance or propose the auditor’s replacement at the shareholders’ meeting or AGM.
If the articles of association entitle the shareholders to appoint or remove an auditor, they may do so following a request provided for in the articles of association. If the articles of association do not provide shareholders with the aforementioned power and there is no other agreement between shareholders (and the company) regarding the matter, then shareholders generally have no right to request an audit of the company’s financial status.
Directors are obliged to inform shareholders about the governance of the company. This is a part of director’s duty of loyalty and diligence under the Company Law, and an important approach to the company’s transparency and the protection of shareholders’ rights and interests. Directors must comply with provisions of the Company Law and other relevant laws and regulations to ensure the authenticity, accuracy and integrity of their reports, with no misrepresentations or major omissions and no falsifying of records.
A controlling company has no direct duty or responsibility to other shareholders of the company it controls (“subsidiary”). Under the Company Law, the controlling company and its subsidiary are two independent legal entities, with each responsible for its own shareholders.
However, as the major shareholder of the subsidiary, the controlling company – through its controlling position ‒ can have a significant impact on the subsidiary’s decision-making and management. Therefore, the controlling company’s actions are subject to the Company Law and other relevant laws and regulations. The controlling company should exercise its shareholders’ rights in compliance with laws and regulations and should not damage the rights and interests of other minority shareholders of the subsidiary.
If the company is solvent and facing the possibility of declaring bankruptcy or liquidation, the rights and powers and shareholders may be limited, as the majority of shareholders’ powers may be transferred to the insolvency administrator.
However, shareholders are still entitled to some rights and powers, including participation in the company’s decision-making on whether to apply for bankruptcy, liquidation or restructuring or seek other solutions, by obtaining the specific situation behind and reasons for insolvency as well as other relevant financial information. Shareholders can also actively apply for the company’s liquidation, participate in the liquidation procedure, distribute residual properties, institute litigation (alone or as a representative of all shareholders), and participate in restructuring plans.
Shareholders can vindicate their rights and interests through various legal remedies under the Company Law. According to the Company Law, when shareholders suffer detriment in their interests or rights, they are allowed to take actions against the company ‒ including, but not limited to, representative litigations, the “right to know” and the right to request the dissolution of the company.
Aside from the above-mentioned available actions, shareholders can also request an audit of the company’s accounts and financial records if deemed necessary. However, such request must be put forward for appropriate and proper purposes and in written form. Otherwise, the company is allowed to deny such requests on the ground that it might be detrimental to the company’s interests.
Shareholders enjoy a series of legal remedies against the company’s directors and/or officers, including (but not limited to):
Shareholders can initiate derivative actions under certain conditions, as follows.
Under China’s Company Law, there are different rules and regulations depending on different types of company. Generally speaking, such rules and “tools” available to activist shareholders may be found in laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the Company Law, the Securities Law and China’s Code of Corporate Governance for Listed Companies.
Typical “tools” available to activist shareholders includes the “right to know”, the right to vote in the shareholders’ meeting or the AGM, the right to nominate directors, supervisors and officers of the company, the right to submit proposals, and the right to file shareholder representative lawsuits.
Key aims of activist shareholders are to promote the improvement of the company’s corporate governance structure, increase the company’s operational efficiency and promote the value of the company through the exercise of shareholder’s rights.
Activist shareholders may focus on the company’s dividend distribution, board composition (including the board of directors and supervisors), remuneration of company officers, asset restructuring and strategic planning, etc.
Generally speaking, shareholder activism in Chinese companies usually aims to protect the interests of all shareholders, enhance the company’s market competitiveness and achieve long-term investment returns by optimising corporate governance.
Activist shareholders employ diverse strategies under the framework of China’s Company Law and Securities Law, as well as other relevant laws and regulations. Typical strategies include:
In China, companies in the so-called capital-intensive industries, which heavily rely on capital investment from their shareholders ‒ for example, companies engaging in financial and banking services and private/public fund companies ‒ are common targets of shareholder activism.
Among private companies such as LLCs, activist shareholders are beginning to increasingly focus on the improvement of the whole company’s corporate governance structure and the common welfare and interests of all shareholders, instead of only seeking benefits for individual shareholders.
Among companies listed by stock exchanges in China, activist shareholders are also supported and encouraged by regulatory authorities such as the CSRC and the regulatory sections of the three major stock exchanges (Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing). Authorities generally welcome shareholders activism, as it is regarded as a sign of improving investor professionalism and awareness of self-protection ‒ both of which are keystones of a mature capital market.
In China, hedge funds and private equity funds are likely to be more active than other types of shareholders. Professional investment institutions such as hedge funds tend to have more resources and expertise and are able to analyse markets and companies in greater depth, so that they can take more proactive action to achieve their investment objectives.
China has a rapidly developing capital market and a corresponding gradually improving regulatory system, in which institutional investors (most notably private equity funds and public funds) are playing an increasingly prominent role as activist shareholders. The CSRC and other authorities keep on tracking these professional investors, supporting their efforts to create a better environment for all investors while taking actions to ensure fairness and efficiency in the market.
For the time being, there are no specific data or corresponding statistics on the number of activist shareholders’ demands that are met. This is because many cases of shareholder activism, especially in private companies, are not legally required to be publicised and many companies and activist shareholders may regard these cases as trade secrets of the company.
However, with the implementation of various laws and regulations, it can be surmised that public demand for participation is growing and to some extent being met. Further specific surveys and support by official data are needed to obtain accurate statistics.
When dealing with activist shareholders, typical strategies that a company can adopt include strengthening corporate governance, optimising the shareholder structure, and rationally utilising provisions among the articles of association, as well as full and transparent communication and co-ordination with shareholders.
To be more specific, efforts should be made to optimise the company’s information disclosure and enhance transparency, as shareholders are typically not directly involved in the company’s day-to-day operation, management and decision-making. An efficient and transparent disclosure system can eliminate information asymmetry and misrepresentation.
In addition, provisions in the articles of association should be drafted or rectified in a legible and intelligible way, so that rights and obligations of each party and company institution are clear and visible. The company should also maintain the independence of the board of directors and board of supervisors to ensure the fairness and transparency of decision-making process.
Finally, flexibility should be exercised in adjusting the dividend distribution policy of shareholders, so as to positively respond to the reasonable appeals of shareholders and reduce potential conflicts.
12th Floor
Building 3
No 68 Aoti Street
Jianye District
Nanjing
China
+86 258 772 9999
+86 258 772 9888
nanjing@jtn.com www.jtn.comPositive Developments in Shareholder Activism Under China’s New Company Law
Shareholder activism has become a key force in advancing the optimisation of corporate governance, strengthening the protection of shareholders’ interests and enhancing risk management in modern corporate governance. The Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment) (the “New Company Law”) has taken effect on 1 July 2024, further clarifying and strengthening shareholders’ rights. It has made various new changes to ex ante management and ex post relief of shareholder activism. These changes provide more thorough and effective tools for shareholders to participate in corporate governance and safeguard their rights and interests.
This article aims to explore how the New Company Law facilitates positive developments in shareholder activism and to analyse new channels through which shareholders can comprehensively participate in corporate governance with the help of ex ante management and ex post relief rights.
Ex ante management
The New Company Law has enabled several positive developments in the ex ante management of shareholder activism in China, as follows.
Strengthened right to information
The right to information is fundamental for shareholders to exercise their rights and key to the protection of their legitimate rights and interests. The New Company Law widens shareholders’ right to information, allowing shareholders to review more company information. This helps shareholders effectively oversee the operation and management of the company.
Under the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (2018 Amendment) (the “Old Company Law”), shareholders could only access limited company information, such as the company’s articles of association, shareholder register, meeting minutes, financial reports, and other basic documents. This limited access made it difficult for shareholders to understand the overall operation of the company, particularly with regard to the financial details and internal management decisions of the company. The restrictions on shareholders’ right to information not only affect their participation in corporate governance but also indirectly hinder their identification and prevention of potential company risks.
Article 57 of the New Company Law grants further information rights. In addition to the right to inspect the basic documents of the company, the New Company Law enlarges the scope of inspection ‒ for example, shareholders are entitled to inspect and copy the shareholder register and inspect accounting vouchers. The enlarged scope covers the company’s own books and vouchers and is also extended to relevant documents of the subsidiaries, thereby enabling shareholders to conduct a piercing oversight of the company.
Furthermore, the New Company Law introduces the roles of intermediaries in assisting shareholders in inspecting company information to the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Several Issues in the Application of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (IV). Under the New Company Law, the requirement for shareholders to be present in person is removed, and the shareholders are directly granted the right to appoint intermediaries such as accounting firms or law firms to inspect materials.
Also, Article 110 of the New Company Law lowers the threshold for the shareholders of joint-stock companies to exercise their right to information. It extends the right to inspect accounting books and vouchers, which was applicable only to limited liability companies (LLCs), to the shareholders of joint-stock companies. However, some distinctions remain ‒ namely, shareholders in a joint-stock company who individually or collectively hold 3% or more of the shares for 180 or more consecutive days have the right to ask to inspect the company’s accounting books and vouchers, but such shareholding ratio is not allowed to be raised in the articles of association.
By expanding shareholders’ right to information and broadening channels for their exercise of such right to information, the New Company Law provides shareholders with more opportunities to participate in corporate governance and oversee the management of the company. It also offers preliminary support for shareholders to protect their rights through ex post relief.
Optimised right to convene meetings
The New Company Law updates and optimises the provisions on the right of joint-stock companies’ shareholders to convene an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting. Paragraph 3 of Article 114 of the New Company Law introduces the obligation for the board of directors and the board of supervisors to give a written reply within a specified period, which provides that the board of directors and the board of supervisors must make a decision on whether to convene an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting within ten days from the date of receipt of the request for convening such meeting from shareholders and give a written reply to shareholders. This will help prevent deliberate delays by the board of directors and the board of supervisors, while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders.
Expanded right to submit proposals
The New Company Law lowers the threshold for shareholders to submit proposals, allowing more shareholders to present their proposals at the shareholders’ meeting, so as to influence the company’s decision-making. This change helps strengthen minority shareholders’ participation and makes the company’s decision-making more democratic.
The change in the right to submit proposals is a notable highlight of the New Company Law, as it directly affects whether shareholders can play a more active role in corporate governance. The Old Company Law imposes more limitations on shareholders’ right to submit proposals. Only shareholders with a higher shareholding ratio for a longer period were eligible to submit temporary proposals. Specifically, the Old Company Law provides that shareholders who individually or collectively hold 3% or more of the shares for 180 or more consecutive days may submit temporary proposals at the shareholders’ general meeting ten days before such meeting. This is a more stringent requirement for minority shareholders, which gives rise to their limited participation in the company’s decision-making.
The provisions on shareholders’ right to submit proposals are notably optimised in the New Company Law so as to relax requirements and streamline procedures. In accordance with Article 115 of the New Company Law, shareholders who individually or collectively hold 1% or more of the shares ‒ without regard to the holding duration ‒ may submit temporary proposals ten days before the shareholders’ meeting is held. Besides, the New Company Law expressly provides that the board of directors must notify other shareholders within a specified period after receiving the proposals and submit the proposals to the shareholders’ meeting for review, unless the proposals violate laws and regulations or the articles of association. This change significantly broadens the channels through which shareholders participate in corporate governance and, in particular, the right of minority shareholders to submit proposals is substantially strengthened.
Through these changes, the New Company Law encourages shareholders to actively participate in corporate governance, making the company’s decision-making more transparent and democratic. Shareholders can now influence the company’s strategic direction, election of the management, and other important corporate affairs in order to effectively safeguard their own rights and interests and advance the long-term growth of the company.
Introduction of electronic voting mechanism
Under the New Company Law, companies are allowed to use electronic communication for voting, thereby:
There were no clear provisions regarding electronic voting mechanisms in the Old Company Law, limiting the channels for shareholders to participate in the company’s decision-making to some extent. It is common that listed companies may hold shareholders’ meetings through a combination of electronic communication/online forum and physical presence in accordance with the Code of Corporate Governance for Listed Companies and the Rules for the Shareholders’ General Meeting of Listed Companies promulgated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. However, owing to the lack of legal support, traditional in-person voting at meetings was still the norm. This not only increases the costs of shareholders’ participation but also limits the efficiency and coverage of voting.
To address this issue, the New Company Law includes the electronic voting mechanism as an important supplement to traditional in-person voting at meetings. Article 24 of the New Company Law expressly provides that companies may hold shareholders’ meetings, meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the board of supervisors and conduct voting by means of electronic communication. With the introduction of this electronic voting mechanism, shareholders’ participation in voting becomes significantly more convenient, the costs of participation are reduced, and the scope of participation by shareholders is widened.
Ex post relief
The New Company Law has also led to various positive developments in ex post relief in respect of shareholder activism, as follows.
Improved mechanism for shareholders’ derivative action
The mechanism for shareholders’ derivative action is a route by which an eligible shareholder is able to initiate a lawsuit in their name on behalf of the company to safeguard the company’s interests if the company fails to or is unwilling to do the same when the company’s directors, supervisors, senior officers, or third persons damage the interests of the company. This mechanism was established in Article 151 of the Old Company Law but limited to a single company. However, as modern companies adopt a parent-subsidiary structure or group operation in order to integrate resources and isolate risks, the mechanism for shareholders’ direct derivative action limits the ability of the parent company’s shareholders to protect the interests of subsidiaries.
Paragraph 4 of Article 189 of the New Company Law adds the mechanism for shareholders’ double derivative action. It allows a lawsuit to be initiated by any shareholder of a company if it is an LLC or, if it is a joint-stock company, by any shareholder individually or collectively holding 1% or more of the shares for 180 or more consecutive days on behalf of the wholly owned subsidiary when the subsidiary’s directors, supervisors, senior officers or third persons damage the rights and interests of the wholly owned subsidiary and internal remedies are ineffective. This mechanism fills the gap in the original system regarding the protection of subsidiaries’ interests.
Additionally, pre-litigation procedures are streamlined under the New Company Law. These pre-litigation procedures require shareholders to make a written request to the company’s board of directors or board of supervisors before initiating a lawsuit. Shareholders may file a lawsuit on behalf of the company only when the company refuses to do so or is negligent in doing so. Shareholders of a parent company directly initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the subsidiary, which replaces the parent company’s right of action under the original mechanisms for shareholders’ derivative action. However, the New Company Law provides that before initiating shareholders’ double derivative action, shareholders of a parent company only need to make a written request to the wholly owned subsidiary’s board of directors or board of supervisors, without a request to the relevant body of the parent company. This simplified procedure is expected to demonstrate its potential advantages in optimising litigation processes and improving judicial efficiency in future judicial practice.
Optimised right to exit the company for minority shareholders
By granting the share repurchase right to dissenting shareholders, the Old Company Law allowed shareholders who disagree with certain major matters of the company to request that the company repurchases their shares at a reasonable price. The Old Company Law specifies three circumstances under which the dissenting shareholders of an LLC may exercise the share repurchase right. In comparison, more limitations were imposed on joint-stock companies. Specifically, shareholders may request the company to repurchase their shares only when they hold objections to the resolution on the merger or division of the company adopted by the shareholders’ general meeting.
In addition to maintaining the original share repurchase right of dissenting shareholders, the New Company Law not only expands the application of such right but also introduces an exit route through which shareholders will be entitled to request that the company repurchases their shares when they are oppressed. For LLCs, while maintaining three specific circumstances under the Old Company Law, Article 89 of the New Company Law adds a provision that if a controlling shareholder of the company abuses shareholders’ rights ‒ causing a serious harm to the interests of the company or other shareholders ‒ other shareholders will be entitled to request that the company repurchases their shares at a reasonable price.
Article 161 of the New Company Law extends the aforementioned three specified circumstances under the Old Company Law, which were applicable to LLCs, to the joint-stock companies that do not publicly issue shares. For companies that publicly issue shares, the dissenting shareholders’ share repurchase right will apply only in the event of merger or division of companies under the New Company Law. Lastly, the New Company Law provides for more detailed procedural requirements.
Under majority rule, a series of updates to the shareholder exit mechanism in the New Company Law provides more relief channels to protect the rights and interests of minority shareholders.
Strengthened obligations and responsibilities of controlling shareholders and actual controllers
In corporate governance in China, controlling shareholders and actual controllers often influence the company’s decision-making through informal channels. Even without serving as directors or senior officers, they can also actually control the board of directors and the operation of the company. Once the interests of the company or other shareholders are damaged, it is difficult to hold them accountable under the Old Company Law, as there are no legal means to directly restrain controlling shareholders and actual controllers who are not directors or senior officers.
The New Company Law provides solutions to this issue. Paragraph 3 of Article 180 of the New Company Law provides that if a company’s controlling shareholder or actual controller does not serve as a director in the company but actually executes the affairs of the company, they shall assume the duty of loyalty and of care of a director, supervisor and senior officer against the company. Article 192 of the New Company Law provides that, if a company’s controlling shareholder or actual controller instructs a director or senior officer to engage in behaviour that damages the interests of the company or shareholders, the controlling shareholder or actual controller shall be jointly and severally liable with the director or senior officer.
The New Company Law offers ex post relief for shareholder activism in several dimensions. Firstly, the legal liability of controlling shareholders and actual controllers is significantly reinforced, as controlling shareholders and actual controllers are also subject to the liability system of directors on certain conditions. Secondly, the scope of defendants in shareholders’ derivative action is enlarged, providing a legal basis for shareholders to hold controlling shareholders and actual controllers accountable for their misconduct. Lastly, it provides channels for seeking legal remedies so that shareholders whose interests are damaged may directly hold shadow persons accountable.
Improved litigation system for defective resolution
This litigation system for defective resolution is designed to prevent controlling shareholders from abusing their power to damage the rights and interests of minority shareholders under majority rule and to ensure that the interests of all shareholders are fairly protected. The New Company Law improves the litigation system for defective resolutions in several respects. First, Article 26 of the New Company Law defines the starting date and statute of repose for shareholders’ right to revocation. If the procedures for convening the shareholders’ meeting or the meeting of the board of directors and their voting methods violate laws, administrative regulations or the articles of association, or if the resolution violates the articles of association, Article 26 provides that:
Additionally, Article 26 sets out a maximum one-year statute of repose ‒ namely, if they do not exercise the right to revoke within one year from the date the resolution is made, the right to revoke shall be extinguished. This will help avoid the loss of rights due to information asymmetry.
Second, the New Company Law introduces a provision from the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Several Issues in the Application of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (IV), which adds an “untenability” category to the resolution defect, in addition to the existing invalid and revocable categories. Besides, Article 27 of the New Company Law provides that a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting or the board of directors shall be untenable under the following circumstances:
This change makes the rules regarding the defectiveness of resolutions clearer and more systematic.
Lastly, the provision of Article 22 of the Old Company Law that the court may ‒ upon the company’s request ‒ require shareholders to provide corresponding guarantee in the litigation for defective resolutions is removed under the New Company Law. This is designed to reduce obstacles for minority shareholders to protect their rights.
Connection between ex ante management and ex post relief in shareholder activism under the New Company Law
Under the New Company Law, the practice of shareholder activism is not limited to ex ante management and supervision but also includes ex post relief and rights protection. Ex ante management and ex post relief complement each other ‒ both constituting a complete path for shareholders to participate in corporate governance.
Active participation in formulation of articles of association
The articles of association is a constitutional document of company autonomy and has binding force on the company, its shareholders, directors, supervisors and senior officers. Active participation by shareholders in the formulation or revision of the articles of association based on the New Company Law is key to practising shareholder activism.
First, the New Company Law makes significant amendments to safeguard shareholders’ rights, but the law often only provides basic definitions. In the absence of corresponding judicial interpretations, many areas are to be expressly defined. Second, phrases such as “in accordance with the articles of association” or “unless otherwise provided in the articles of association” ‒ which fully reflect the respect for company autonomy ‒ are both included in the New and Old Company Law. This grants sufficient autonomy and flexibility to companies.
Companies may include provisions regarding the pre-litigation procedures for shareholders’ double derivative action, scope of shareholders’ right to information, and pricing method for repurchase of dissenting shareholders’ shares in the articles of association. In brief, if shareholders can incorporate detailed provisions on the management and relief rights of shareholder activism into the articles of association and supplement those areas not yet covered by corresponding judicial interpretations, it will help ensure the effective practice of shareholder activism.
Full use of the right to information to facilitate the derivative action right
The right to information is the foundation for shareholders to exercise other rights. By fully using the right to information, shareholders proactively ask to inspect the company’s financial reports, accounting vouchers, meeting minutes and important contracts, etc, so as to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the company’s operation and management. This facilitates effective assessment of the company’s situation and supervision of the management by shareholders. Moreover, the scope of inspection and copying under the New Company Law is extended to relevant materials of the wholly owned subsidiary, which are crucial for shareholders in evaluating whether to initiate the double derivative action.
Impact of changes in organisational structure on shareholders’ rights
Changes in organisational structure directly affect the exercise of shareholders’ rights. Under the New Company Law, companies have greater flexibility in organisational arrangements. Article 69 and Article 121 of the New Company Law provide that a company may establish an audit committee under the board of directors, without a supervisor or board of supervisors, to replace the functions of the board of supervisors. In accordance with Article 83 and Article 133 of the New Company Law, in the case of smaller-scale companies or those with fewer shareholders, there may be only one supervisor ‒ without a board of supervisors ‒ or, for an LLC, not even one supervisor is needed with the unanimous consent of all shareholders.
If a company establishes an audit committee under the board of directors to replace the board of supervisors, this may alter the means by which shareholders oversee the company through the board of supervisors. In this case, shareholders may need to ensure the professionalism and independence of the members of such committee.
Conclusion
The implementation of the New Company Law injects new vitality into shareholder activism and provides more opportunities for participation in corporate governance. While enjoying the rights and interests granted by the New Company Law, shareholders should also strictly comply with laws and exercise their rights reasonably to achieve the long-term growth of the company and maximise shareholder interests. In the future, with the in-depth implementation of the New Company Law, shareholder activism is expected to play an increasingly important role in corporate governance.
12/F
Hang Seng Bank Tower
1000 Lujiazui Ring Road
Shanghai
200120
China
+86 216 886 6600
+86 216 886 5466
tcsh@tclawfirm.com www.tclawfirm.com