A registered shareholder of a Beijing real estate company requested access to company records. The company resisted on grounds including nominee shareholding, contribution issues and alleged improper purpose. Li Shu’s team acted in the related disputes over shareholder status and information rights.
In the status dispute, the team organized registration records, the articles and other shareholding evidence to respond to the nominee and contribution arguments. According to YunTing’s account, the Beijing High People’s Court dismissed the company’s retrial application, leaving the existing recognition of shareholder status in place.
In the information-rights action, the lawyers addressed the written request, its purpose and the reasons given for refusal, responding to allegations concerning competition, disclosure of information and harm to the company. The original account states that the court supported inspection and copying of the articles, meeting records, relevant resolutions and financial reports, and inspection of accounting books. The operative judgment determines the precise scope of compliance.
The strategy in this matter was to secure shareholder status before pursuing access to records. Its significance lies in tailoring the evidence, requested materials and preliminary procedure to the case; it does not mean that every shareholder dispute requires two successive lawsuits.
Current-law update: registration, the articles, the shareholder register and transaction evidence should be assessed together. Registration is not an irrebuttable or exclusive test. Contribution disputes do not automatically eliminate shareholder status, but the statutory demand and forfeiture mechanism under Article 52 of the current Company Law must also be considered where relevant.
Article 57 distinguishes inspection and copying of general corporate documents from inspection of accounting books and vouchers. A request for books and vouchers must be in writing and state its purpose. A company refusing access on statutory grounds must respond in writing within fifteen days and explain its reasons; the shareholder may sue. Qualified intermediary assistance is permitted, subject to confidentiality and personal information protections.
In practice, evidence of shareholder status, service of the request, its purpose and the company’s response should be preserved. Inspection rights should not be overstated as a right to copy every record. The historical judgment and the current-law update should be understood separately.
Legal source: PRC Company Law, revised in 2023 (Chinese text).