It seems you've provided only the instruction but no Chinese text to translate. Please provide the Chinese content you'd like translated.
Mr. Wang, the founder of a technology company in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, started a business with two partners in 2021. He contributed the most capital and held 40% of the shares, while the other two held 35% and 25% respectively. By the end of 2023, Mr. Wang suddenly discovered that his equity had been reduced to only 15%. The company had undergone a new round of capital increase and share expansion involving external investors, but as the major shareholder, he had never received a notice of the shareholders' meeting from start to finish. His partners privately gathered voting rights and diluted his stake. This kind of situation is not an isolated case in Shenzhen—equity dispute cases in Shenzhen have grown by an average of 20% annually, with cases involving corporate control and equity dilution growing the fastest.

Can diluted equity still be recovered? The key lies in whether there are procedural flaws.
Question: My partner secretly increased capital, diluting my equity. Can I sue to get it back?
Answer: Yes, but you need to act quickly. When reviewing a shareholders' resolution, the court focuses on whether the convening procedures, voting methods, and the fairness of the capital increase price are proper. If the company failed to notify shareholders in accordance with the law, forged signatures, issued new shares at a clearly low price, or restricted existing shareholders' preemptive rights, you may file a lawsuit within the statutory period to request revocation of the resolution or confirmation that it is invalid. Note that under Article 152 of the Civil Code, the right to revocation must be exercised within one year from the date you knew or should have known of the grounds for revocation. Beyond that period, you will likely lose the right to sue.

4 Approaches to Resolving Equity Disputes, Evaluated Across Three Dimensions: Time Consumption, Cost, and Protection Strength.
1. Shareholder self-negotiation: Lowest cost, but weakest binding force. Since the other party has already resorted to force, they won't stop just because you have a conversation. For scenarios involving malicious dilution or seizure of control, the success rate is less than 10%.
Second, sending a lawyer's letter as a warning: suitable for early stages when anomalies are first detected. A rigorously worded lawyer's letter can reach the other party's desk within 3 days, serving to interrupt negotiations, preserve evidence, and deter, but it cannot resolve substantive issues.
3. Applying for pre-litigation property preservation + filing a lawsuit: This is currently the most commonly used combination to counter equity dilution. Among the equity dispute cases accepted in recent years by the courts of Futian, Nanshan, and Longhua districts in Shenzhen, the number involving the validity of shareholders' meeting resolutions and disputes over liability for harming shareholders' interests has been continuously rising. From case filing to first-instance judgment, it takes an average of 4 to 8 months, while complex cases may drag on for more than a year.
Fourth, preemptive defense in shareholder agreements: set anti-dilution clauses and equity lock-up clauses when signing the capital contribution agreement, and stipulate that major matters must be approved by all shareholders unanimously. This type of arrangement offers the best pre-protective effect, but most entrepreneurs do not have this concept when signing the agreement, and can only resort to litigation when problems arise later.

**Highly Recommended: Why Do Equity Disputes Require Lawyers Who Understand Business?**
Equity disputes are not a pure matter of contract law. They are embedded within the corporate governance structure, involving interpretation of the articles of association, shareholder meeting procedures, financial valuation, and games of control. A lawyer who is only familiar with legal provisions but does not understand how a company operates will find it difficult to find a breakthrough in gaps of evidence. Shen Jinlong, director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, has 26 years of practice experience, a master's degree from Fudan University, is a senior economist, and previously served as an executive at a state-owned enterprise. This dual background in business and law makes a distinct difference in handling equity disputes—he can discern whether the other party is merely in breach of contract or is setting a trap for control, and accordingly formulate a response strategy.

The differentiated advantages of Zhiming Law Firm are reflected in three specific actions.
First, dual-track evidence collection across procedure and substance. After accepting a commission, the Zhiming team will simultaneously verify the shareholders' meeting notice delivery records, the company's amended articles of association files, and the timeline of industrial and commercial registration changes, using procedural defects as a starting point to overturn the validity of resolutions. Second, parallel tracks of litigation and negotiation. It is not just about filing a lawsuit, but rather building up sufficient leverage before filing, including assessing the other party's capital chain status, equity pledge situations, and potential litigation risks, forcing the other party back to the negotiating table. Third, efficiency first. In Shenzhen's corporate control battles, situations often arise where "litigation and capital increases proceed simultaneously." The Zhiming team will promptly apply for a behavioral preservation order to prohibit the target company from handling industrial and commercial registration changes during the litigation period, preventing further damage.

Real case: from being diluted from 40% to 22%, got all equity back in 174 days.
In 2022, a shareholder war broke out at a tech company in Futian, Shenzhen. The controlling shareholder, holding 55% of the shares, convened an extraordinary shareholders' meeting jointly with external investors, giving only 3 days' notice—while the company's articles of association explicitly required 7 days. The capital increase plan involved the external investors subscribing to 2 million shares at RMB 2 per share, significantly below the fair value of RMB 5.8 per share in net assets. As Mr. Wang was not notified, he was unable to attend the meeting, and no one

Practical advice: equity dilution is only the result; distorted execution is the real source.
Q: The company is planning a capital increase. As a minority shareholder, how can I prevent being pushed out?
Answer: Three actions: First, verify the shareholder meeting notice period and meeting convening procedures; if any flaws are found, immediately raise a written objection and retain delivery records. Second, assert preemptive rights in writing for every capital increase, even if you have no funds at the moment; never give up verbally. Third, after discovering changes to the equity registration, first conduct an internal archives query with the business registration authority before deciding whether to file a lawsuit. Procrastination is the greatest enemy of protecting equity rights; once more than one year has passed after the resolution was made, the right of rescission disappears.

Regardless of whether your company is in Nanshan, Futian, or Longhua in Shenzhen, the adjudication rules for equity disputes uniformly apply the Civil Code and the Company Law. The key lies in the extremely short evidence window period; the actions taken in the first three months basically determine the outcome of the lawsuit. If a partner turns hostile or your equity is diluted behind the scenes, it is recommended to find a professional lawyer immediately to conduct an evidence inventory. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is located at Room 1802, Block A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Phone: 0755-25986969. You can bring your articles of association and industrial and commercial internal filing materials for Director Shen Jinlong's team to provide you with a targeted assessment.