第一条 关联交易损害公司利益，原告公司依据公司法第二十一条规定请求控股股东、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人员赔偿所造成的损失，被告仅以该交易已经履行了信息披露、经股东会或者股东大会同意等法律、行政法规或者公司章程规定的程序为由抗辩的，人民法院不予支持。

Article 1 With respect to the damage to a company's interests by related-party transactions, if the plaintiff company requests the controlling shareholder, actual controller, director, supervisor or senior officer to pay compensation for the losses incurred according to Article 21 of the Company Law and the defendant only makes its defense on the grounds that it has performed the duty of information disclosure, it has obtained the consent of the board of shareholders or the general meeting, or it has completed other procedures required by laws, administrative regulations or articles of association, such defense will not be supported by the people's court.

公司没有提起诉讼的，符合公司法第一百五十一条第一款规定条件的股东，可以依据公司法第一百五十一条第二款、第三款规定向人民法院提起诉讼。

If the company does not initiate a legal action, the shareholders that meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Company Law may initiate a legal action in the people's court in accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 151 of the Company Law.

【官方解读】法定程序不能豁免关联交易赔偿责任

[Official Interpretation] Damage compensation lability cannot be exempted by performance of statutory procedures in related-party transactions

关于关联交易的内部赔偿责任问题，司法解释中明确规定了关联交易损害公司利益的，履行法定程序不能豁免关联交易赔偿责任。实践中，人民法院审理公司关联交易损害责任纠纷案件时，相关行为人往往会以其行为已经履行了合法程序而进行抗辩，最主要的是经过了公司股东会或董事会决议批准，且行为人按照规定回避表决等。但是，关联交易的核心是公平，本条司法解释强调的是尽管交易已经履行了相应的程序，但如果违反公平原则，损害公司利益，公司依然可以主张行为人承担损害赔偿责任。

Regarding the internal liability for compensation in related-party transactions, this article of the Judicial Interpretation clearly states that such liability cannot be exempted by the performance of statutory procedures if a transaction causes damage to the company's interests. In practice, in court trials of disputes involving damage compensation liability in related-party translations, the relevant persons tend to argue that they have performed the legal procedures for their conduct, most importantly by securing a resolution of the shareholders' meeting or the board of directors, and that they have also recused themselves from the voting process as required, etc. However, the key issue with related-party transactions concerns fairness. This article emphasizes that even though a related-party transaction may have passed the relevant procedures, the company can still claim damage compensation liability against the relevant persons if the transaction is in breach of the arm's length principle.

鉴于关联交易情形下，行为人往往控制公司或者对公司决策能够产生重大影响，公司本身很难主动主张赔偿责任，故明确股东在相应情况下可以提起代表诉讼，给中小股东提供了追究关联人责任，保护公司和自身利益的利器。

Given that the persons conducting a related-party transaction often control or have significant influences on the decision-making of the company, it will be hard to depend on the company to initiate a claim for damage compensation on its own behalf. Therefore, this article stipulates that shareholders may bring derivative suits in appropriate circumstances, thus giving minority shareholders an effective weapon to hold those responsible for related-party transactions to account and protect the company's and their own interests.

第二条 关联交易合同存在无效或者可撤销情形，公司没有起诉合同相对方的，符合公司法第一百五十一条第一款规定条件的股东，可以依据公司法第一百五十一条第二款、第三款规定向人民法院提起诉讼。

Article 2 If anything in the contract on related-party transactions is invalid or revocable and the company does not initiate a legal action against the counterparty thereto, the shareholders that meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Company Law may initiate a legal action in the people's court in accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 151 of the Company Law.

【官方解读】股东可通过提起代表诉讼，请求确认关联交易中相关合同无效与撤销

[Official Interpretation] Shareholders may bring derivative suits to request invalidation or revocation of the relevant contracts in related-party transactions

目前我国法律体系下，公司作为合同一方，如果合同存在无效或者显失公平等可撤销情形，可以根据相关规定直接请求确认合同无效或撤销该合同。但是关联交易合同不同于一般的合同，是关联人通过关联关系促成的交易，而关联人往往控制公司或者对公司决策产生重大影响，即使合同存在无效或者可撤销的情形，公司本身也很难主动提出请求。在这方面，《规定》实际扩展了股东代表诉讼的适用范围，将之扩大到关联交易合同的确认无效和撤销纠纷中。在公司不撤销该交易的情形下，符合条件的股东可根据法律规定提起股东代表诉讼，来维护公司利益，进而维护股东自身利益。

Under current Chinese laws, a company as a party to a contract may directly make a request for the invalidation or revocation of such contract in accordance with the relevant regulations if the contract is invalid, unconscionable or revocable due to other circumstances. But different from normal contracts, related-party transaction contracts are entered into for transactions facilitated by the connected relationship between related parties, who often control or have significant influences on the decision-making of the company. So even if there are circumstances which can render a contract invalid or revocable, it will be hard for the company itself to initiate a claim. Considering this, the Provisions effectively expanded the scope of application of shareholder derivative suits to include disputes concerning invalidation and revocation of related-party transaction contracts. In the absence of an action by the company to revoke a related-party transaction, qualified shareholders may bring a derivative suit in accordance with the law to protect the company's and their own interests.

第三条 董事任期届满前被股东会或者股东大会有效决议解除职务，其主张解除不发生法律效力的，人民法院不予支持。

Article 3 Where a director is removed from his post through an effective resolution made by the board of shareholders or general meeting before expiry of his term of office and he claims that the said removal shall have no legal effect, such claim will not be supported by the people's court.

董事职务被解除后，因补偿与公司发生纠纷提起诉讼的，人民法院应当依据法律、行政法规、公司章程的规定或者合同的约定，综合考虑解除的原因、剩余任期、董事薪酬等因素，确定是否补偿以及补偿的合理数额。

After a director is removed from his post, if any dispute arises between the company and the director due to compensation and a legal action is therefore initiated, the people's court shall determine whether compensation should be paid, as well as the reasonable amount of compensation, in accordance with laws, administrative regulations and articles of association, or the terms of the contract, and in consideration of such factors as the reasons for removal, the term of office remaining and the director's renumeration.

【官方解读】公司可以随时解除董事职务，但应给予合理补偿

[Official Interpretation] Companies may remove a director from office at any time but shall pay reasonable compensation

《规定》廓清了公司与董事的关系，明确了公司可以随时解除董事职务。我国公司法中仅规定了董事任期由公司章程规定，每届任期不得超过三年，任期届满连选可以连任，对董事与公司的关系并无明确的规定，但公司法理论研究与司法实践中已经基本统一认识，认为公司与董事之间实为委托关系，依股东会的选任决议和董事同意任职而成立合同法上的委托合同。既然为委托合同，则合同双方均有任意解除权，即公司可以随时解除董事职务，无论任期是否届满，董事也可以随时辞职。

The Provisions clarify the relationship between companies and their directors, specifying that companies may remove a director from office at any time. The Chinese Company Law makes no clear stipulations on such relationship, but only states that the term of office of directors shall be prescribed by the articles of associations and in any case, shall not exceed three years for each term, and that directors may serve consecutive terms if re-elected upon expiration of one term. But in theory and practice regarding the Company Law, a consensus has generally been reached to deem the relationship between companies and their directors as a principal-agent relationship, which becomes contractual under the Contract Law upon the resolution of the shareholders' meeting to appoint a director and the director's acceptance of the appointment. As a principal-agent contract, it can be rescinded freely by either party to the contract, meaning that a company may dismiss a director from office at any time regardless of whether his/her term of office has expired or not, whilst the director may also quit office at any time.

无因解除不能损害董事的合法权益。为平衡双方利益，公司解除董事职务应合理补偿，以保护董事的合法权益，并防止公司无故任意解除董事职务。所以本条强调给付的是合理补偿。我国合同法中明确规定了委托人因解除合同给受托人造成损失的，除不可归责于该当事人的事由以外，应当赔偿损失。本条对法院审理此类案件时的自由裁量权行使进行了相应指引。

Termination without cause will not prejudice the legitimate rights of directors. To balance the interests between the parties, it is required that companies should pay reasonable compensation to directors in the event of dismissal so that the legitimate rights of directors can be protected, and companies can also be prevented from arbitral dismissal. Therefore, the emphasis of this article is reasonable compensation. According to the Chinese Contract Law, the principal shall compensate the agent for loss if such loss is caused to the agent due to the rescission of contract by the principal for reasons not attributable to the agent. This article provides the corresponding guidance for courts to exercise their discretionary powers in the trial of this type of cases.

第四条 分配利润的股东会或者股东大会决议作出后，公司应当在决议载明的时间内完成利润分配。决议没有载明时间的，以公司章程规定的为准。决议、章程中均未规定时间或者时间超过一年的，公司应当自决议作出之日起一年内完成利润分配。

Article 4 After a resolution is passed by the board of shareholders or general meeting regarding profit distribution, the company shall distribute the profits within the time limit expressly stated in the resolution. If no time limit is specified in the resolution, the provisions in the articles of association shall prevail. If no time limit is specified in both the resolution and the articles of association, or if the time limit lasts for more than one year, the company shall distribute the profits within one year from the date when the resolution is passed.

决议中载明的利润分配完成时间超过公司章程规定时间的，股东可以依据公司法第二十二条第二款规定请求人民法院撤销决议中关于该时间的规定。

If the time limit for profit distribution specified in the resolution exceeds that in the articles of association, shareholders may request the people's court to revoke the provisions regarding the said time limit in the resolution according to Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Company Law.

【官方解读】设定公司分配利润的期限，超过公司章程规定部分视情况可撤销

[Official Interpretation] A resolution setting a time limit for profit distribution that exceeds that prescribed in the articles of associations can be partially revoked depending on the situation.

在本次司法解释制定中，《规定》明确了利润分配完成时限的原则：
分配方案中有规定的，以分配方案为准；
分配方案中没有规定的，以公司章程为准；
分配方案和公司章程中均没有规定，或者有规定但时限超过一年的，则应当在一年内分配完毕。

In this Judicial Interpretation, the principle regarding the time limit for profit distribution is stated as follows:
If a distribution plan specifies a time limit, such time limit shall prevail;
If a distribution plan does not specify a time limit, the time limit specified in the articles of association shall apply; or
If there is no time limit specified in both the distribution plan and the articles of association, or the time limit specified exceeds a year, profits shall be distributed within one year upon the date of resolution on the distribution plan.

如果具体分配方案中载明的分配时间超过了章程的规定，股东可能更希望按照章程规定的时间进行分配。这属于公司决议内容违反章程规定，符合决议可撤销情形，股东有权依法起诉撤销该决议中关于分配时间的部分。分配时间被撤销后，则应当依照章程的规定进行分配。

If the time limit for profit distribution prescribed in a specific distribution plan exceeds that in the articles of association, shareholders would likely want to follow the time limit set in the articles of association. This is a case where the content of a company resolution is in breach of the articles of association, and in such case, the resolution in question can be revoked and shareholders shall have the legal right to sue for revocation of the part of the resolution concerning the time limit. If it is revoked, profits should be distributed according to the relevant provision of the articles of association.

本条还明确了公司决议可以部分撤销，决议部分撤销不影响其他部分的效力，但是如果该分配时间与决议其他部分密不可分，则不能单独撤销分配时间。故能否撤销需要法院根据案件审理情况具体确定。

This article also provides that a company resolution can be partially revoked without affecting the validity of its remaining parts. However, if the time limit prescribed is closely tied to the other parts of the resolution, it cannot be revoked alone. Therefore, it will be subject to the decision of the trial court based on the specific situation.

第五条 人民法院审理涉及有限责任公司股东重大分歧案件时，应当注重调解。当事人协商一致以下列方式解决分歧，且不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的，人民法院应予支持：
（一）公司回购部分股东股份；
（二）其他股东受让部分股东股份；
（三）他人受让部分股东股份；
（四）公司减资；
（五）公司分立；
（六）其他能够解决分歧，恢复公司正常经营，避免公司解散的方式。

Article 5 When hearing a case involving a major disagreement among the shareholders of a limited liability company, the people's court shall pay attention to mediation. If the dispute is resolved in any of the following ways upon negotiation between the parties concerned without violating any mandatory provisions in laws and administrative regulations, the people's court shall support the said resolution.
1. The company repurchases the shares of some shareholders;
2. Some shareholders transfer their shares to other shareholders;
3. Some shareholders transfer their shares to other parties;
4. The company reduces its registered capital;
5. The company is divided; or
6. Other ways through which the company resolves the dispute and resumes normal operation without being dissolved.

【官方解读】充分利用调解方式解决股东重大分歧

[Official Interpretation] Mediation shall be fully adopted for resolving major shareholder disagreements

有限责任公司基于其人合性特征，股权转让受到诸多限制，股东退出公司较为困难。虽然通过调解方式在诉讼过程中实现类似的效果是一条可行途径，但这类案件调解往往更为复杂，要求更高的专业性，故需要在司法解释中作出相应指引。

Since LLCs have a distinct membership feature and have more restrictions on the transfer of shares, it's more difficult for their shareholders to exit the company. Although mediation in the ligation process is a feasible option to achieve similar results, mediation of this kind of cases is often more complicated and requires greater expertise. Therefore, it's necessary to have corresponding guidance in judicial interpretations.

我国公司法中并非没有股东分歧解决机制，如我国《公司法》第七十四条规定了有限责任公司股东的股份回购请求权，第一百四十二条第一款第四项规定了股份有限责任公司股东回购请求权。此外，我国《证券法》第八十八条、第九十六条规定了上市公司股份被收购达到30%时，法律保护少数股东的强制出售权。《公司法司法解释二》第五条也规定法院判令公司解散时应当注重调解。上述规定体现了尽力避免司法解散公司的要求。但上述规定适用范围偏窄。《规定》继承了此前的分歧解决机制，并扩大适用范围，将其扩大到所有涉及有限责任公司股东重大分歧的案件纠纷类型中。

The Chinese Company Law does provide certain mechanisms for resolution of shareholder disagreements. For example, Article 74 of the Company Law specifies the right to request share buybacks for shareholders of LLCs, and Item 4 of the first paragraph of Article 142 specifies the same right for shareholders of joint stock limited companies. Article 88 and Article 96 of the Chinese Securities Law both state that in the event that 30% of shares in a listed company is acquired, the right to compulsory sales of the shares of minority shareholders will be protected by law. Article 5 of the Second Judicial Interpretation on the Company Law also states that courts should pay attention to mediation before ordering a dissolution. The abovementioned provisions reflect the efforts to avoid corporate dissolution by judicial actions. But the applicable scope of these provisions is a bit narrow. The Provisions follow up on the previous disagreement resolution mechanism with an expansion of their applicable scope to cover all cases and disputes involving major disagreements among shareholders of LLCs.

通过调解，可以由愿意继续经营公司的股东收购不愿意继续经营公司股东的股份，类似于股份强制排除制度；可以由公司回购股东股份，类似于股份回购制度；可以由公司以外第三人收购股东股份。争议股东股份被收购后，退出公司，公司僵局即可解开，从而维持公司正常经营。转让股份不能实现的情形下，通过调解，实现公司减资，使得争议股东“套现离场”，其余股东继续经营减资后的公司，也可以使得公司存续；公司分立则使得无法继续合作的股东“分家”，各自经营公司，也使得公司以新的形式存续。

Through mediation, shareholders who wish to stay in the company may buy the shares of those who don't, which is similar to the squeeze-out mechanism; or the company may buy back the shares, which is similar to the share buyback mechanism; or a third party outside the company may buy the shares. The disagreeing shareholders can exit the company when their shares are bought or bought back, and the corporate deadlock can be broken so that the normal operation of the company can be maintained. If share transfers cannot be achieved, a capital reduction of the company may be achieved through mediation so that the disagreeing shareholders can “cash out” and exit, while the remaining shareholders can continue to operate the reduced company and the company can also continue to exit; on the other hand, a division of the company will have the disagreeing shareholders who don't wish to stay to “venture out” on their own, and the company will exist in a new form.

同时，本条还强调不得违反法律、法规的强制性规定。无论股权在股东之间转让、公司回购股份、股份转让给公司外第三人还是减资、公司分立等，都有各自的条件和程序性要求。法院在调解过程中要注意指导当事人遵守法律、法规和监管规定，遵守相应程序。

Meanwhile, this article also emphasizes that mandatory provisions in laws or regulations shall not be violated. No matter whether the shares are transferred between shareholders, bought back by the company or transferred to a third part outside the company, or no matter whether there is a capital reduction or company division, they have their respective conditions and procedural requirements to meet. Courts should pay attention to guiding the parties to comply with laws, regulations and regulatory rules, as well as the relevant procedures in the course of mediation.