Delta Law Expat Services Desk ｜ Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court 上海市浦东新区人民法院, typical case batch released 2026-08-26
- Case name 案例名称：程某某与上海某公司、张某、程某股东资格确认纠纷案 (a claim to confirm shareholder status brought by a foreign national against the company and two registered shareholders)
- Case number 案例编号：上海市浦东新区人民法院《服务保障引领区高质量发展典型案例（涉外商事篇）》案例四，2026 年 8 月 26 日发布，本批共 6 件，统计区间 2021 年 7 月—2026 年 6 月
- Effective judgment 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号
- Keywords 关键词：官方案例标题载明「明确隐名股东显名标准 保障外籍投资者合法权益」
- Provisions cited officially 官方载明的相关法条：官方裁判理由引用《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第二条、《中华人民共和国外商投资法实施条例》第三条，以及《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定（三）》第二十四条
- Why this case 为什么选它：Foreign individuals who invested in China before 2020 very often did so through a Chinese friend, spouse or employee whose name went on the register. The arrangement worked while everyone agreed. This is a published example of what happens when it stops working.
1. The facts as officially published 基本案情
2009年11月，程某某（美国籍）与张某、程某签订《股份协议书》，约定以张某、程某名义成立上海某公司，实际持股比例为程某某51%、张某25%、程某24%。程某某通过程某向张某转账458762元，其中26万元系以其名义缴纳的出资。2009年11月11日，上海某公司成立，类型为有限责任公司，注册资本100万元，登记股东为张某（51%）、程某（49%）……2012年10月，三方再次签订《股份协议书》，明确程某某对上海某公司持股51%。2018年8月，上海某公司向程某某出具一份《出资证明书》，载明程某某于2009年向上海某公司缴纳出资51万元。2009年至2018年间，张某多次向程某某发送公司运营邮件，2013年分红方案显示程某某拟分得510万元。
程某某诉称：其系上海某公司实际出资人，要求确认张某名下26%股权归其所有，并由公司配合办理股权变更登记。上海某公司辩称：程某某未实际出资，且其显名请求违反《中外合资经营企业法》规定。张某认可上海某公司意见，程某认可程某某意见。
In 2009-11 a U.S. national and two Chinese individuals signed a shareholding agreement providing that a Shanghai company would be set up in the names of the two Chinese individuals, with beneficial holdings of 51 per cent, 25 per cent and 24 per cent respectively. The U.S. national transferred RMB 458,762 through one of them to the other, of which RMB 260,000 was paid in as capital in that person's name. The company was incorporated on 2009-11-11 as a limited liability company with registered capital of RMB 1 million, the register showing the two Chinese individuals as holding 51 per cent and 49 per cent. In 2012-10 the three signed a further shareholding agreement confirming the 51 per cent beneficial holding. In 2018-08 the company issued a capital contribution certificate stating that RMB 510,000 had been contributed to it in 2009. Between 2009 and 2018 one of the registered shareholders repeatedly sent company operating emails to the U.S. national, and a 2013 dividend plan showed an intended distribution of RMB 5.1 million. The claim was for confirmation that 26 per cent of the equity registered in one shareholder's name belonged to the U.S. national and for the company's cooperation in re-registering it. The company's defence was that no capital had actually been contributed and that the claim breached the Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law; one registered shareholder supported the company, the other supported the claimant.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Read the defence again, because it is the part most foreign investors underestimate. The company did not argue that the money was a loan, or that the arrangement had lapsed. It argued two things: that no capital had actually been contributed, and that the arrangement was unlawful under a statute that had already been repealed. Both are attacks on the paperwork rather than on the merits, and both are cheap to run.
Note also the split among the counterparties. One registered shareholder sided with the company; the other sided with the claimant. In a nominee structure the registered holder of the shares in dispute and the company are usually run by the same people, so the claimant should expect them on the same side. What decided the shape of this dispute was that the other registered shareholder did not join them.
2. The official holding 裁判要旨（官方原文）
法院经审理认为：2009年及2012年《股份协议书》、2018年《出资证明书》及分红方案等证据形成相互印证关系，可证明程某某实际出资并享有51%股权，其中26%股权由张某代持。首先，《中外合资经营企业法》限制中国自然人与外籍投资者合资的规定已于2020年废止，现行《外商投资法》第二条及《外商投资法实施条例》第三条明确允许中国自然人与外籍投资者共同设立外商投资企业。其次，上海市浦东新区商务委复函确认，上海某公司所属领域不属于外商投资负面清单范围，程某某显名无法律障碍。
The court held that the 2009 and 2012 shareholding agreements, the 2018 capital contribution certificate and the dividend plan corroborated one another and established that the claimant had actually contributed capital and held 51 per cent beneficially, of which 26 per cent was held on the register by one of the Chinese individuals. First, the provisions of the Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law restricting joint investment between Chinese natural persons and foreign investors were repealed in 2020, and article 2 of the current Foreign Investment Law together with article 3 of its Implementing Regulations expressly permit Chinese natural persons and foreign investors jointly to establish a foreign-invested enterprise. Second, a written reply from the Pudong New Area commerce authority confirmed that the company's field of business did not fall within the scope of the negative list for foreign investment, so there was no legal obstacle to the claimant coming onto the register.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
程某作为其他股东（持股49%）已明确同意程某某显名，符合“其他股东半数以上同意”要件。最终法院判决：确认登记在张某名下的上海某公司26%的股权系程某某所有，上海某公司将相应股权变更登记到程某某名下，张某予以配合。
The registered shareholder holding 49 per cent had expressly consented to the claimant coming onto the register, which satisfied the requirement of consent by half or more of the other shareholders. The court gave judgment confirming that the 26 per cent registered in the other shareholder's name belonged to the claimant, ordering the company to re-register that equity in the claimant's name, and ordering the registered shareholder to cooperate.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
其核心价值在于确立了外商投资负面清单制度下外籍隐名股东显名的审查规则，即《外商投资法》施行后，若公司投资领域不在外商投资准入负面清单限制之列，且外籍隐名股东已实际履行出资义务，并经名义股东以外的其他股东半数以上同意，外籍隐名股东请求确认其股东资格并作显名登记的，人民法院应予支持。
The published note records the value of the case as establishing the review standard for a foreign beneficial owner coming onto the register under the negative-list regime: after the Foreign Investment Law took effect, where the company's field of investment is not restricted by the negative list for foreign investment access, where the foreign beneficial owner has actually performed the capital contribution obligation, and where not less than half of the other shareholders apart from the nominee have consented, a claim to confirm shareholder status and to be entered on the register should be supported.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Three conditions, in a fixed order. Two of them are about the investor and one is about the company. The negative-list question is answered by looking at what the company does, not at who the investor is; the contribution question is answered by documents; the consent question is answered by counting votes among the people whose names are on the register.
The order matters because the three conditions fail differently. A negative-list problem is structural and cannot be fixed by better paperwork. A contribution problem is evidential and gets harder every year that passes. A consent problem is political, and it is the one condition a claimant can still work on after the dispute has started.
One caution on how to read the third condition. 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定（三）》第二十四条 is the provision the official reasoning applied, and the official text records the standard as consent by half or more of the other shareholders（「其他股东半数以上同意」，含本数）. This page did not obtain an official full-text page for that judicial interpretation, so it reports only what the official case text records about it and does not restate the provision in the words of any other rule.
3. Practical guidance 律师实务提示
Treat the negative list as a question about the company, and check it yourself. A written reply from a commerce authority is evidence, not a permission. The court still owes an independent judgment on whether 《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第四条 — which establishes pre-establishment national treatment plus a negative list — leaves the field open. A business scope drafted broadly in 2009 may today touch a restricted item that nobody thought about; identify the version of the list that applies and the specific item, before anyone writes to anyone.
Rebuild the contribution record before you need it. Under 《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第二条, an investment by a foreign natural person is within the Law's scope, and 《中华人民共和国外商投资法实施条例》第三条 confirms that Chinese natural persons count as the other investors — so the legality of the structure is no longer the hard part. What is hard is proving payment a decade later. Collect the transfer records, the successive agreements, any capital contribution certificate, the operating correspondence and the dividend documents, and keep them as one bundle rather than as scattered files.
Count the consent votes early. The registered holder of your shares and the company will often be on the same side against you, so the vote you need usually comes from someone else. Ask for it in writing while relations are good, and record the reason for the arrangement at the same time. Read the threshold as inclusive: 「半数以上」 includes exactly half. Consent obtained in advance is worth more than consent negotiated after a claim has been filed.
Finally, separate the two remedies you are asking for. Confirmation of status and re-registration are different orders against different parties, and the second requires the company's cooperation. A settlement that gives you confirmation without re-registration leaves you where you started.
4. What this means in your situation 把要点落到你的处境
第二条 在中华人民共和国境内（以下简称中国境内）的外商投资，适用本法。
本法所称外商投资，是指外国的自然人、企业或者其他组织（以下称外国投资者）直接或者间接在中国境内进行的投资活动……
第四条 国家对外商投资实行准入前国民待遇加负面清单管理制度。
第三条 外商投资法第二条第二款第一项、第三项所称其他投资者，包括中国的自然人在内。
Foreign Investment Law, article 2: this Law applies to foreign investment within the territory of China; foreign investment means investment activities conducted directly or indirectly within China by foreign natural persons, enterprises or other organisations. Article 4: the State applies a management system of pre-establishment national treatment plus a negative list to foreign investment. Implementing Regulations, article 3: the other investors referred to in items 1 and 3 of the second paragraph of article 2 of the Foreign Investment Law include Chinese natural persons.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
| What the official release holds | What it turns on | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| The joint-venture restriction on Chinese natural persons was repealed in 2020 | Which statute is current | An objection built on the repealed regime is answerable; do not settle because of it |
| The field of business was outside the negative list | What the company does | Check the item and the list version yourself; a reply letter is evidence, not clearance |
| Actual contribution was proved by corroborating documents | The paper trail across years | Assemble transfers, agreements, certificates, emails and dividend records as one bundle |
| Consent of half or more of the other shareholders was satisfied | Who else is on the register | Secure that consent in writing before a dispute, not after |
| Confirmation plus an order to re-register, with the nominee to cooperate | Two remedies, not one | Ask for both; confirmation alone does not move the register |
- Misconception: a foreign individual could never lawfully co-invest with a Chinese individual. In fact: the official 裁判结果 records that in 本案 「《中外合资经营企业法》限制中国自然人与外籍投资者合资的规定已于2020年废止」.
- Misconception: a favourable letter from the commerce authority settles the matter. In fact: the official 裁判结果 records only that in 该案 「上海市浦东新区商务委复函确认，上海某公司所属领域不属于外商投资负面清单范围」; the negative-list assessment remains the court's to make.
- Misconception: money paid through a third party cannot count as your contribution. In fact: the official 基本案情 records that in 本案 「程某某通过程某向张某转账458762元，其中26万元系以其名义缴纳的出资」.
- Misconception: consent from the person holding your shares is what you need. In fact: the official 裁判结果 records that in 该案 it was 「程某作为其他股东（持股49%）已明确同意程某某显名」 that met the test.
- The Chinese rules that apply to you
- Published cases involving foreign nationals
- Money, investment and tax for foreign nationals in China
- Selling a Chinese Company You Never Paid Up: Two Italian Shareholders and the Price They Could Still Collect (pending publication)
- Unwinding a Cross-Border Cross-Shareholding: What a Korean Investor Got Out of a Shareholder Inspection Suit (pending publication)
- ① 上海市浦东新区人民法院《服务保障引领区高质量发展典型案例（涉外商事篇）》案例四《程某某与上海某公司、张某、程某股东资格确认纠纷案》，2026 年 8 月 26 日发布，本批共 6 件，统计区间 2021 年 7 月—2026 年 6 月。官方 PDF 附件 https://www.hshfy.sh.cn/css/2026/08/27/202608271024407833510.pdf ；发布会报道页 https://www.hshfy.sh.cn/shfy/web/xxnr.jsp?pa=aaWQ9MTAyMDUwNDI3OSZ4aD0xJmxtZG09bG0xNzEPdcssz&zd=xwxx 。核验说明：该官方 PDF 为扫描件、无文本层，本页所录官方原文经 OCR 提取并人工逐字复核。官方原文中的嵌套法规名在官方 PDF 中即排印为半角尖括号（非 OCR 失真），照录会与 HTML 标签冲突，故本页第二节第二个原文框已自「程某作为其他股东」起录以避开该处；本页解读段按现行排印规范写作〈中华人民共和国公司法〉。
- ② 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号；官方对当事人只写「程某某」「张某」「程某」「上海某公司」，本页照录。
- ③ 本页引用《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第二条（官方裁判理由引用）、第四条（官方发布文本未涉及，本页作现行规则提示）。2019 年 3 月 15 日第十三届全国人民代表大会第二次会议通过，官方页 http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/201905/t20190521_297827.html 。
- ④ 本页引用《中华人民共和国外商投资法实施条例》第三条（官方裁判理由引用）。国务院令第 723 号，官方页 https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2019-12/31/content_5465449.htm 。官方裁判理由中该两部法源写作简称《外商投资法》《外商投资法实施条例》，本页文末统一用全称，两者所指同一。
- ⑤ 本页引用《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定（三）》第二十四条，系官方裁判理由引用。本页未取得该司法解释的官方全文页，故只转述官方案例文本对该条的援引，不摆条文原文，亦不代为对应到其他规则的条号。
- Status and timing note 效力与时点提示：本案为上海市浦东新区人民法院发布的典型案例，供审判参考，不具有指导性案例的参照效力；in English, it is published for reference and does not carry the effect of a guiding case. 条号出处已分开：《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第二条与《中华人民共和国外商投资法实施条例》第三条系官方裁判理由引用；《中华人民共和国外商投资法》第四条系官方发布文本未涉及的现行规则，本页仅作提示，不是本案的裁判依据。程序性事项 subject to the current published requirements of the accepting authority。
- 本页案例引自官方公开发布，非本所承办案件展示，不构成对具体个案的法律意见。This case is drawn from an official public release and is not a showcase of matters handled by this firm, and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case.
This article is general legal research and does not constitute legal advice; by law, a law firm may not guarantee case outcomes. 本文为一般性法律研究，不构成法律意见；依据法律规定，律所不得承诺办案结果。
