Xie Minshi v. Zhang Ruichang and Shanghai Kingston Foundry Co., Ltd.
(Case of Dispute over Stock Right)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Xie Minshi, male, 52 years old, citizen of the United States of American, residing at California State of the United States of American.@#
Defendant: Zhang Ruichang, male, 53 years old, citizen of United States of American, residing at California State of the United States of American.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Kingston Foundry Co., Ltd., located at Jiading District of Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Ruichang, president of the company.@#
Xie Minshi brought a lawsuit with the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai, the People's Republic of China for his dispute over stock right transfer with Zhang Ruichang and Shanghai Kingston Foundry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kingston Company).@#
Xie Minshi claimed: Zhang Ruichang, my university schoolmate, proposed transferring 20% of the of the stock he held in Kingston Company to me. As he was my schoolmate, I trusted him and totally remitted USD 400,000 to Kingston Company at the price proposed by Zhang, and I was listed as the vice president of the company, but I did not participate in the operation and management of Kingston Company. In September 1999, when I was invited to temporally manage the company, I found out that Zhang Ruichang did not put USD 2.11 million of spot exchange he promised and the manufacturing equipments worth USD 890,000 into Kingston Company as he had agreed, but had my capital assessed as his own capital and had committed behaviors violating the relevant provisions and infringing other shareholders' rights and interests. Therefore, I told Zhang Ruichang that I wanted to withdraw my money and Zhang Ruichang agreed to purchase the 20% of the shares he transferred to me at the same price I paid. Zhang drafted an Agreement on Stock Right Transfer. But we did not sign it because he changed the terms of payment at the time when we were about to sign it. We agreed to replace the agreement with a decision of the board of directors of Kingston Company. On March 13th, 2000, the board of directors of Kingston Company made decision A and decision B (hereinafter referred to as Decision 3.13). It is stipulated in the Decision that: Xie Minshi shall transfer 20% the shares of Kingston Company to Zhang Ruichang at the price of USD 400,000; Kingston Company shall, within 2 days since the day when the Decision is made, transfer the ownership of the house property located at Room 404, No.7 of Lane 65 of Jiashajiang Road which is owned by the company to Xie Minshi at an evaluated price of 421,145 yuan; Kingston Company shall pay 1.5 million yuan to Xie Minshi out of the income from selling the shop premise located at the ground floor of No.69 of Jinshajiang Road, and the remaining amount shall be paid by Kingston Company in the form of issuing forward bank draft to Xie Minshi on a monthly basis; and in the case of any overdraft or returned bill, Xie Minshi shall have the right to ask for all the outstanding debts. As Zhang Ruichang is de facto the sole investor of Kingston Company, Zhang Ruichang's debt shall be Kingston Company's debt. After Decision 3.13 was made, I left Kingston Company and Zhang notified the employees of my withdrawal. But he did not transfer the ownership of the house property located at Room 404, No.7 of Lane 65 of Jiashajiang Road to me, nor did Kingston Company issue any forward bank draft to pay the outstanding amount. It is my position that, even though the relevant formalities for modification registration failed to be handled after the agreement on stock right transfer was concluded, the agreement should be established according to law and should have legal force. Now Zhang Ruichang and Kingston Company fails to pay corresponding transfer money to me as agreed, their acts have already constituted a default. I brought this lawsuit to protect my own legal rights and interests, so I petition the court to order Zhang Ruichang to immediately pay me the transfer money of USD 400,000 or 3,311,600 yuan, which is converted from USD 400,000 at the exchange rate of 1:8.279, and order Kingston Company to undertake joint and several liability for clearing this debt.@#
．．．．．．

谢民视诉张瑞昌、金刚公司股权纠纷案@#
@#
原告：谢民视，男，52岁，美利坚合众国公民。住址：美利坚合众国加利福尼亚州。@#
被告：张瑞昌，男，53岁，美利坚合众国公民。住址：美利坚合众国加利福尼亚州。@#
被告：上海金刚铸造有限公司。住所地：中华人民共和国上海市嘉定区。@#
法定代表人：张瑞昌，该公司董事长。@#
原告谢民视因与被告张瑞昌、上海金刚铸造有限公司(以下简称金刚公司)发生股权转让纠纷，向中华人民共和国上海市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告谢民视诉称：原告与被告张瑞昌原为大学同学，张瑞昌提出将其在被告金刚公司中的20％股份转让给原告。基于对老同学的信任，原告按张瑞昌提出的价格，先后向金刚公司汇入40万美元，以投资人身份被列名为金刚公司的副董事长，但一直未参与金刚公司的经营管理。1999年9月原告应邀暂时管理公司时，才发现张瑞昌并未按合同、章程的约定，将其许诺投入的211万美元现汇及价值89万美元的生产设备注入金刚公司，而是将原告投入的资金当作他个人出资进行验资，并且在经营管理期间还有违规操作及侵害其他股东权益的情形。为此，原告向张瑞昌要求退出金刚公司，由张瑞昌按原价收购其出让给原告的20％股权。张瑞昌表示同意，并与原告达成协议，草拟了《股权让度协议书》，但在行将签约时，因张瑞昌变更付款条件，致签约未成。双方又确定以金刚公司董事会决议案的方式代替股权转让合同。2000年3月13日，金刚公司董事会作出A、B两个决议案(以下简称“3·13决议”)，同意原告将金刚公司20％股权以40万美元的价格转让给张瑞昌；同意在决议签署后两日内，将公司购买的金沙江路65弄7号404室之房产作价421145元人民币过户给原告，同时将金沙江路69号底层店面出售款中的150万元人民币先支付给原告，余款由金刚公司向原告开出远期银行汇票每月支付一次；若有任何一期透支或被退票，原告有权主张全部未到期债权。由于张瑞昌实际是金刚公司的全额投资人，因此张瑞昌对原告的付款行为，即为金刚公司向原告的付款行为。董事会决议作出后，原告即离开金刚公司，张瑞昌也已经向员工宣布了原告退股的消息。而张瑞昌并未将金沙江路65弄7号404室之房产过户给原告，金刚公司也未向原告开出远期银行票据支付余款。原告认为，股权转让协议签订后，虽未到政府相关部门办理变更登记手续，但已经是依法成立的合同，具有法律约束力。现在张瑞昌和金刚公司未按协议向原告支付相应的股权转让款，已构成违约。为维护己身合法权益，故提起诉讼，请求判令张瑞昌立即向原告支付股权转让款40万美元或按1：8．279的比例折算的人民币3311600元；判令金刚公司连带清偿张瑞昌的这一债务。@#
原告谢民视提交了以下证据：@#
1．金刚公司的工商登记材料，以证明金刚公司的原始股东状况；@#
2．谢民视支付投资款的汇款凭证及股东变更后的批准证书、营业执照，以证明谢民视的投资情况。这些证据还证明，至2000年6月，金刚公司实到注册资金是50万美元。@#
3．谢民视于1999年10月17日向张瑞昌发出的质疑函，以证明谢民视退股缘由。@#
4．张瑞昌于1999年10月22日给谢民视的回函。@#
5．《股权让度协议书》草案以及谢民视与张瑞昌和金刚公司为股权让度事宜的往来传真，以证明退股有充分协商的过程。@#
6．金刚公司于2000年3月13日作出的董事会A、B决议，议定谢民视将持有的金刚公司20％股份作价40万美元转让给张瑞昌。@#
被告张瑞昌辩称：被告金刚公司是本人与案外人上海立新实业有限公司(以下简称立新公司)共同设立的中外合作企业。原告谢民视为了参股，共向金刚公司汇入资金392908．64美元，不是40万美元。谢民视的资金是汇入金刚公司，而金刚公司不是本人的私人企业。谢民视将本人列为本案被告，没有事实根据。金刚公司确于2000年3月13日作出董事会决议，全体董事同意由本人承购谢民视的20％股权。根据《中外合作经营企业法》的规定，公司股权的变更，光有董事会决议是不行的，必须经过审批机关的批准和登记机关进行变更登记。这次董事会还决议，将属于金刚公司的两处房产作价给谢民视支付股权转让款。此举如付诸实施，就会造成合作公司的注册资本减少，这有悖法律规定。董事会虽然决议谢民视把价值人民币300万元以上的股权转让给本人，但由董事会决议的形式转让，不符合法律的要求。根据经济合同法的规定，经济合同除即时清结的以外，应当采取书面形式。决议后，谢民视没有与本人订立过转让的书面合同。基于以上理由，谢民视现在根据金刚公司2000年3月13日的董事会决议主张支付股权转让款，是违法的，其诉讼请求不应当支持。@#
被告张瑞昌提交的证据是：@#
1．金刚公司接受谢民视投资的进账凭证，其上记载谢民视的投资共计392908．64美元。@#
被告金刚公司辩称：本案是股东之间的股权纠纷，与本公司没有关联。@#
审理中，原告谢民视以被告张瑞昌、金刚公司故意不到政府部门办理股权变更手续、人为制造诉讼障碍为由，增加一项诉讼请求为：判令张瑞昌和金刚公司到政府有关部门办理因股东、股权变化所引起的一切法律手续。@#
原告谢民视还补充提交了以下证据：@#
7．张瑞昌发给女儿的传真，告知谢民视已转股的事实。@#
8．谢民视分别于2000年11月18日、12月18日所发催促张瑞昌和金刚公司办理转股手续的函。@#
9．谢民视于2001年1月18日致张瑞昌和金刚公司的函，要求张瑞昌和金刚公司不得将金沙江路69号店面房屋等财产转移。@#
10．上海市嘉定区对外经济贸易委员会办公室于2000年7月21日出具的证明，内容称：金刚公司自2000年3月13日以后，未向其提出过变更批准证书原有事项的要求。@#
针对原告谢民视增加的诉讼请求，被告张瑞昌和金刚公司答辩称：由于金沙江踣69号底层房屋的出售事宜未能如约成交，也由于谢民视已经要求政府职能部门停止办理金刚公司的股权变更手续，所以金刚公司无法办妥股权变更手续，并非拖延不办。2000年12月5日，在谢民视借故拒绝参加的情况下，金刚公司召开了一次董事会，作出了“关于2000年3月13日之A、B决议终止执行”的决议(以下简称“12．5决议”)。因此，谢民视退股的事实前提已不存在，其支付股权转让款的诉讼请求不能成立。金刚公司不会再因谢民视而去办理股权变更手续，谢民视增加的诉讼请求也不能支持。况且谢民视增加的诉讼请求与原来的诉讼请求是两个法律关系，应当分案起诉、分案审理。@#
．．．．．．