No. Civil Code Art. 35 expressly forbids a guardian from disposing of the ward’s property except for the ward’s benefit. Even motivated by “saving the company to indirectly protect the child’s dividends,” it is hard to have recognized judicially—unless the transaction is clearly favorable to the child (e.g., a high-price cash-out), it can be voided and liability pursued.

Revocation may be impossible, but a reduced share is still claimable. The longest period is five years from the act (Art. 541); three years is within five, but you must prove “knew or should have known” within one year. Even if revocation lapses, Art. 1092 is not time-barred—discovery at or after divorce allows a reduced or re-division claim.

Generally no. Shareholder qualification is comprehensively succeeded from the moment of inheritance; case practice widely supports a successor shareholder’s inspection of company materials from the period during which the decedent held the shares. The company may defend only on whether the request satisfied the prior procedure and whether the purpose was proper; it cannot refuse by period demarcation.

Under Article 22 of the Third Judicial Interpretation on the Company Law the claimant must prove lawful subscription or payment of capital, or acquisition by transfer or succession without breaching mandatory provisions. Article 24 provides that a nominee arrangement is valid absent statutory grounds of invalidity, and a nominee cannot rely on the register to deny the beneficial owner’s rights.…

Yes, he may assert. Where a guardian ultra vires disposed (e.g., low-price transfer, signing an unfavorable VAM), the child after adulthood may, on grounds of unauthorized agency or infringement of the ward’s interests, petition to confirm the act void or claim damages; the limitation period runs from when he knew or should have known, and a minor’s infringed limitation protection…

Not a blanket prohibition. Director election by the shareholders’ meeting is a statutory mechanism; the articles may refine nomination and election procedures (e.g., qualifications, nomination thresholds) but may not strip the successor’s right of nomination and eligibility—such common-benefit content, if stripped, renders the clause invalid as a substantive deprivation of statutory shareholder rights.

Under the current position of the Guangdong High People’s Court, first-instance foreign-related and Hong Kong / Macao / Taiwan commercial cases in Shenzhen below RMB 50 million are centrally heard by the Qianhai Cooperation Zone People’s Court; cases of RMB 50 million or more are heard by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. Assess whether the case has foreign-related elements before…

Close kinship is an important factor presuming knowledge. You can also prove: close contact between transferee and transferor (communications); the transferee’s understanding of the company (meetings, signed documents); no actual consideration paid (bank records show no payment); and the transferee exercising no shareholder rights after the transfer (no meetings, no dividends, no decisions). All point to “cooperating in the transfer”…

Yes. Under Civil Code Art. 538, a creditor may revoke a gratuitous transfer that affects claim realization, and transferee knowledge is not required. Gratuitous transfer to close relatives such as parents is the most typical malicious-transfer scenario with a high revocation success rate. Mind the one-year period from when you knew or should have known.

In practice courts reference “transfer price below 70% of market price.” The equity “market price” is usually determined by net-asset valuation. If the net-asset value of the equity is RMB 1 million, a transfer below RMB 700,000 may be deemed a “manifestly unreasonable low price.” The lower the price, the more likely the finding.