Study On The Protection Of Minority Shareholders’ Dividend Rights In Limited Liability Companies

Dividend rights is one of the important rights of stockholder,Investors take contributionto the company’s fundamental,whose purpose is to get a return on investment.the purpose isdifferent between the Limited liability company and limited liability company by shares ofsmall and medium-sized shareholders.And a limited liability company is more likely to havebig shareholders infringe on the characteristics of the phenomenon of small and mediumshareholders. In the limited liability company, receive dividends of the exercise is the mostdirect way to obtain a return on investment. But in the actual operations of the company, themajor shareholder of relying on "The Majority" principle, do not pay dividends for years lessdividends, directly or indirectly, against the dividend rights of minority shareholders, and thisphenomenon is more common.This article will research scope which is limited to a limitedliability company, in order to fit the judicial practice need, more practical significance.In this paper, the empirical analysis and comparative analysis methods to analyze thecombination of dividend under the protection of a limited liability company minorityshareholders. Our limited liability company, dividend rights violations suffered by minorityshareholders mainly from major shareholders. Major shareholders control the use of majorityrule does not make the board of directors or shareholders or make a symbolic dividenddistribution resolution. This phenomenon is the fundamental reason lies against the interestsof the big differences between shareholders and minority shareholders. Through our judicialcase analysis, when unfairly prejudice the shareholders to seek judicial relief to the court, butbecause our country does not establish a mandatory dividend of complaint, there is no otherstatute can be used directly, resulting in inconsistencies across the court for the right todispute the decision of the shareholders’ dividends. So combining the status quo of China’sjudicial and legislative situation compare abroad, China has a need to improve the existinglegislation, including a perfect revoke or confirm the shareholders’ meeting, the board ofdirectors as well as to improve the resolution of the complaint is invalid dissentingshareholder equity repurchase claims system. Litigation on China through direct comparison with the large shareholders and breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders Responsibilityrecommended the establishment of a mandatory dividend of appeal. It is a manifestation ofjudicial intervention in corporate autonomy, but also the most effective protection of dividendrights to justice. Finally, by comparing with foreign legislation, recommended theestablishment of a shareholders’ agreement system, enacted by the Legislature dividenddistribution plan of specific guidance to investors, for their choice at the time of entering intothe articles of association, to enhance investor protection of their rights awareness throughcontractual arrangements beforehand.