Research On Protection Of Rights And Interests Of Dormant Shareholders In Shareholding Entrustment

In recent years,the company’s investment way more diverse.Shareholding entrustment on behalf of some investors as a hidden form of investment,for the benefit of dormant shareholders with investment opportunities.In the judicial practice,in shareholding entrustment protection of rights and interests of dormant shareholders disputes mainly happens on the limited liability company,it might involve dormant shareholder’s right to know,receive dividends,company management right,the right of disposition of their equity,famous contribution and execution objection to aspects of rights and interests protection,Among them,the co.,LTD.,implicit shareholder’s name and problem is particularly prominent,will this as a research focus in this paper.On the naming of the dormant shareholders in shareholding entrustment,although“Company Law Interpretation(3)” in paragraph 3 of article 24 of the implicit shareholder requirements of the process,but because “more than half of other shareholders agreed” to the provisions of the likely “consent” abuse of other shareholders,thus in the past the referee,on the basis of experience,“the minutes of civil and commercial trial meeting of national courts issued in 2019” article 28,of dormant shareholders of the supplementary provisions of the conditions,the “implied consent” included in the category of “agree”.Future legislation can reference and refinement “the minutes of civil and commercial trial meeting of national courts issued in 2019” regulation,in the condition of implicit shareholder’s name of the standard of “agree”.Avoid to the risk of dormant shareholders show name is blocked,suggest dormant shareholders prepare beforehand risk prevention,carefully chosen name of shareholders,and the equity of a perfect generation of the agreement.There is a phenomenon of different judgments in the same case in the judicial practice on the issue of whether the implied shareholders can raise objections against the nominal shareholders’ creditors.Through carding the cases,the author concludes that the judges have two main positions:one is based on commercial principles appearance,the appearance of registration rights of nominal shareholders creditors trust interests,exclude the execution objection of dormant shareholders;that nominal shareholders creditors do not belong to the commercial appearance of the "third person" in the category of socialism,shall,according to the actual ownership protection of dormant shareholders equity.This paper argues that the nominal shareholders creditors belong to the “third person”,should get the protection of the commercial appearance principles,but when it is not worthy of reliance interest protection,should give priority to protection of dormant shareholders,avoid the rights to damage the legitimate rights and interests of dormant shareholders abuse.In order to reduce the differences of such cases,propose legislation as soon as possible to determine the range of “third person”,the unified court rules,protect the anonymity of shareholders of as much as possible.