Research on dual-class share structure system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the development of the company, the founders and management often resort to issuing shares for financing, which inevitably leads to equity dilution and may endanger the founders' control over the company. To maintain control during financing, founders are increasingly adopting a dual-class share structure. Before listing, founders categorize shares into two types: one reserved for founders or majority shareholders, which are non-tradable but carry multiple voting rights per share; and another publicly issued, which can freely trade on the stock market but carries only one share one vote. Even after multiple rounds of financing under a dual-class structure, founders can still retain control of the company. The dual-class share structure has become a popular corporate governance model for tech companies in the evolving capital markets. The Shanghai Sci-Tech innovation board has also begun to allow tech companies with dual-class structures to list, showing recognition of this structure. However, given China's current market environment and legislative background, the application of dual-class structures must be strictly regulated. This research first defines the basic concepts and historical development of dual-class share structures, then analyzes the potential legal risks and advantages based on Principal-agent theory, control rights theory, and shareholder heterogeneity theory. The thesis draws on the developmental history and legislative practices from the United States, Canada, Singapore, and Hong Kong to provide insights for implementing dual-class structures in China. This thesis also includes an empirical analysis of China concept stock listed in the U.S., assessing the impact of dual-class structures on corporate performance. Finally, the article proposes specific recommendations for establishing and refining dual-class share structures in China, including qualifying conditions for listing, enhancing supervision systems, improving the independent director system, strengthening information disclosure requirements, and establishing more comprehensive shareholder protection mechanisms to ensure that minority shareholders can obtain effective relief when their rights are infringed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".