How should a deadlock among shareholders be resolved?

A corporate deadlock arises when shareholders are unable to communicate effectively or make decisions, rendering the company incapable of passing valid resolutions. This undermines the fundamental characteristic of a limited liability company—its ‘personal affinity’ (i.e., mutual trust and cooperation among shareholders)—and leads to severe difficulties in management and operations, causing significant losses to shareholders’ interests. From a structural perspective, deadlocks occur more frequently in limited liability companies than in joint-stock companies. In joint-stock companies, shares are freely transferable; thus, dissatisfied shareholders may simply sell their shares, making corporate deadlocks relatively rare. By contrast, the personal affinity among shareholders—built on mutual trust, division of labor, and collaboration—is the very foundation upon which limited liability companies survive and thrive. Once this cooperative basis erodes—or when serious disagreements emerge over corporate strategy—the company’s operations grind to a halt, and shareholders’ reasonable expectations of returns collapse. Under such circumstances, allowing the company to continue existing not only wastes resources but also inflicts further substantial losses upon shareholders, thereby triggering a corporate deadlock. When a deadlock occurs, shareholders may petition a court for judicial dissolution of the company to best protect their own interests and mitigate losses. Article 182 of the Company Law states: “Where serious difficulties arise in the management and operations of a company, and its continued existence would cause major losses to shareholders’ interests—and where such difficulties cannot be resolved through other means—any shareholder holding at least ten percent of the company’s total voting rights may petition the people’s court for dissolution of the company.” Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (II) stipulates: “A shareholder (or shareholders collectively) holding at least ten percent of the company’s total voting rights may file a lawsuit seeking dissolution of the company on any of the following grounds, provided the conditions under Article 182 of the Company Law are met: (i) the company has been unable to convene a shareholders’ meeting or general meeting for over two consecutive years, resulting in serious difficulties in management and operations; (ii) for over two consecutive years, the shareholders have been unable to pass valid resolutions at shareholders’ meetings or general meetings due to failure to attain the statutory or charter-specified voting thresholds, resulting in serious difficulties in management and operations; (iii) prolonged conflicts among directors cannot be resolved via shareholders’ meetings or general meetings, resulting in serious difficulties in management and operations; or (iv) other serious operational difficulties exist such that the company’s continued existence would cause major losses to shareholders’ interests.” In the present case, the majority shareholder has monopolized the company’s entire management and operations: no shareholders’ meetings have been convened; no financial reports have been provided; the company’s profitability or losses remain undisclosed; and no dividends have been distributed. As a result, the other three shareholders have been entirely deprived of their voting rights, rights to participate in management, rights to information, and rights to dividends—leaving them with no voice whatsoever in the company. Given the current situation, the company premises have already been demolished, and the majority of the compensation payment has been misappropriated by the majority shareholder. Reconstruction is no longer feasible. Continued existence of the company would merely enable the majority shareholder to fabricate additional debts and divert further corporate assets—thereby perpetuating losses to the other three shareholders. At this point, dissolution of the company is no longer merely justified—it is necessary. Liquidation represents a viable path forward. Through the liquidation process, the majority shareholder can be compelled to produce accounting books, original vouchers, and other financial records. A comprehensive review of the company’s assets and liabilities can then be conducted: fictitious debts and improper payments can be rescinded; outstanding receivables can be pursued; and any remaining assets can be distributed equitably among shareholders.

Hidden Currents in Negotiation: Psychological Game Strategies in Corporate Debt Restructuring

Hidden Currents in Negotiation: Psychological Game Strategies in Corporate Debt Restructuring Debt mediation records from a provincial capital city in 2024 reveal starkly divergent outcomes between two construction-materials enterprises of comparable scale: Enterprise A secured a 36-month repayment extension and interest-rate reduction, whereas Enterprise B was forced to pledge additional collateral. A deep analysis of recorded negotiation sessions uncovered that the head of Enterprise A employed three psychological negotiation techniques: (1) deliberately referencing competitors’ financing activities during impasses; (2) reframing the repayment proposal using the principle of ‘loss aversion’; and (3) conveying bottom-line signals through meticulous micro-expression management. Behavioral economics experts identify three psychological vulnerabilities influencing creditors’ decision-making: (1) excessive fixation on sunk costs; (2) framing-effect bias in risk assessment; and (3) decision-making delays driven by herd mentality. Internal training materials from a joint-stock bank in 2025 disclose that professional negotiators deploy a ‘three-part pressure-release toolkit’: ① introducing non-financial topics as negotiation buffers; ② dynamically alternating between ‘good-cop/bad-cop’ roles; and ③ creating a cognitive illusion of time urgency.

Braskem Shareholders Pull Funding Offer as Debt Talks Hit Snags

Nov 6, 2026

Braskem shareholders withdrew a $1.4 billion capital injection pledge after creditors rejected a debt conversion proposal during restructuring talks. With negotiations stalled, the company may now seek bankruptcy protection as an alternative.

bloomberg

2026-05-06

Braskem Q1 Output Rebounds in Brazil After Bahia Maintenance; Mexico Suffers Ethane Crunch

2026-05-16

Braskem Q1 earnings buoyed by PP margins, REIQ credits

2026-08-14

Petrochemicals Maker Braskem Beats Estimates Amid Cash Woes

2026-10-02

Owners of Brazil's Braskem Finalizing Counter Proposal to $3 Billion Capital Demand

2026-11-06

Braskem Shareholders Pull Funding Offer as Debt Talks Hit Snags