The Case Analysis Of Shareholder’s Right To Know Of Jiade Company

Having and performing the r ight to know is not only an important means of s ma lland medium shareho lders to s upe r vis e c o mpa ny’s ma na ge me nt, b ut a lso thefo unda tio n o f the imp o rta nt decis ion right, benefic ia l r ight and other core rights canrea lize. In recent years, the behavior of in fr ing ing o n shareholder’s right to know inall types of companies ha ve occurred, has become a major obstacle o f co mpany’ snorma l operation. I n the case of s hareho lder’s right to know of J iade company, fourshareholders of Li Shujun, Wu Xiang, Sun J ie, Wang Guo xing knew nothing aboutJiade compa nie’s operating status, the company has not give a bonus, a nd has a lot ofexterna l debt default, s o the four s hareho lders applied for exercise shareho lder’s rightto know and required to inspect the compa ny’s documents a nd records. The fourshareholders instituted a laws uit to the court on the sixth day after the application.The court accepted the case.After two rounds of tr ials, the court of second instancechanged the judgment o f court of first insta nce and a llowed the four share holders toexercise the s hareho lder’s right to know. This case has three focus o f debate: whetherthe case met the precond itions of litigation of shareho lder’s right to know; whetherthe four p laintiffs seek to exercise the r ight for le gitimate purpose; and whether thecase belongs to the scope of litigation of share ho lders’ right to know. Using releva ntregulations o f share holder’s right to know in China’s “Company Law” with re leva nttheories in do mestic and foreign acade mic c ircles, it can be known that the judgme ntmade by the court o f first instance was one-sided, contradictory and subjective, andthe judgment o f the court of second instance focused on effic ienc y and essence fa ir. Inconc lus io n, this case met the precondition of the litigatio n of the right to know, thefour pla intiffs have le gitimate purpose and some requests exceed the scope of thelega l rules. Thus the case evoke deeper thoughts on improving the litigatio n syste m ofshareholder’s right to know, so as to guide jud ic ia l practice on the s hareho lders’ rightto know.