Zhang Guiping v. Wang Hua
(Dispute over Contract on Stock Right Assignment)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
1. The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the previous version of the Company Law that “stocks held by the promoters of a company may not be transferred within three years as of the establishment of the company” aimed to prevent the promoters from exploiting the corporate structure for illegal gains and evading their potential legal liabilities through stock transfer.@#
2. Where a promoter enters into an equity transfer agreement within three years as of establishment of the company, agreeing that registration of the transfer of the stocks will be completed three years after establishment of the company and that the transferee will be authorized to exercise the rights relating to the stocks, such agreement does not violate the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the previous version of the Company Law. An agreement that the transferee-to-be shall be authorized to exercise the rights relating to the stocks during the stock lock up period does not violate the mandatory legal provisions, either.  Further, the above conducts may not exempt the legal obligations of the transferor as a promoter nor as a shareholder.  Hence, the equity transfer agreement described above shall be held lawful and valid.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff (Defendant in the Counterclaim): Zhang Guiping, male, 55, board chairman of Suning Global Group, dwelling at Beijing West Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the Counterclaim): Wang Hua, male, 45, board chairman of Jiangsu Jinsheng Group, dwelling at Zhongshan North Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.@#
Zhang Guiping (the plaintiff, Zhang hereafter) brought a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Jiangsu Higher Court) against Wang Hua (defendant, Wang hereafter) due to a dispute over a contract on stock right assignment.@#
Zhang alleged: Both Zhang and Wang were initiators and shareholders of Nanjing Pudong Construction Development Joint Stock Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Pudong Company). Pudong Company was established on September 20, 2002. Zhang invested 18 million yuan, possessing 18 million shares of Pudong Company, with the shareholding proportion at 18%; Wang invested 17 million yuan, possessing 17 million shares, with the shareholding proportion at 17%. After Pudong Company was established, its registered capital was increased from 100 million yuan to 200 million yuan as required by the project development. Zhang increased its capital to 64 million yuan, with his shareholding proportion reaching 32%, and Wang increased its capital to 34 million yuan, with his shareholding proportion still at 17%. As of June 2004, Wang contacted Zhang for several times for assigning all his shares in Pudong Company to Zhang. After negotiations, Zhang agreed to acquire Wang's all shares at the premium price of 83 million yuan. The price was 2.44 times of Wang's actual investments. On October 22, 2004, both parties formally executed the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares”, under which Wang promised to, before completing the share assignment procedures, authorize Zhang to exercise all rights and bear all obligations as a shareholder on behalf of Wang. If Zhang unilaterally terminates this Agreement, he shall pay 415 million yuan of special compensation to Wang; if Wang breaches the agreement in any way, he shall also pay 415 million yuan of special compensation to Zhang. Since both parties were Pudong Company's initiators, and Pudong Company had been established for less than three years by the time when the “Agreement on Stock Right Assignment” was concluded, both parties also concluded the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” in order to guarantee the stock rights to be assigned lawfully and smoothly. After the Agreement was concluded, Zhang performed his obligations in strict accordance with the Agreement. By December 31, 2004, Zhang totally paid 81 million yuan to Wang. Upon the signatures of Wang's agents, the remaining 2 million yuan should be settled after the completion of the share assignment procedures was confirmed. However, on January 8, 2005, Wang sent a “Notification on Recovering Shares” to Zhang, saying that Zhang's delay in paying the funds and failure to pay the 2 million yuan constituted fundamental breach, and meanwhile, Wang abolished all agreements he concluded with Zhang and the power of attorney he had issued. Wang was dishonest by breaching the agreement after receiving 81 million yuan. Zhang pleaded Jiangsu Higher Court to lawfully order Wang to continue performing the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” concluded between both parties, and to pay 415 million yuan of special compensation to Zhang pursuant to the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares”.@#
Wang argued: (I) The “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” concluded between Zhang and Wang violated compulsory legal provisions and the “Articles of Association of Nanjing Pudong Construction Development Joint Stock Company Limited” (hereinafter referred to as “Articles of Association of Pudong Company”), and were null and void. Wang was an initiator and also a director of Pudong Company. When both parties executed the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares”, Pudong Company had been established for less than three years. According to Article 147 of the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Company Law), the shares held by the initiators of a joint stock company limited may not be assigned within three years as of the date of establishment of the company; directors, supervisors and managers of the company shall declare to the company the shares they hold or assign the shares concerned during the terms of their respective offices. Article 38 of the “Articles of Association of Pudong Company” also prescribes: “The company shares held by initiators shall not be assigned within three years as of establishment of the company.” Therefore, the shares held by Wang could not be assigned when the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” were concluded. For the purpose of not transferring the the stock rights in question formally but being able to immediately exercise the stock rights in question actually, Zhang evaded laws by stipulating in the above said agreements that he fully authorized Zhang to exercise his shareholder's rights (including the right to receive proceeds) and director's rights in Pudong Company before he actually assigned his stock rights. In this way, Zhang actually enjoyed and exercised Wang's stock rights in Pudong Company, and Wang had essentially performed his obligations under the Agreement. As a result, the shareholder's rights and obligations in question were fully transferred to Zhang. Therefore, the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” concluded between both parties obviously evaded compulsory legal provisions and the Company's articles of association, and should be null and void. (II) Even if the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period” were effective, Zhang still had no right to demand Wang to bear special compensation for breach. Zhang's statement on the performance of the agreements was not true, and his allegation that Wang breached the agreements had no factual basis. Zhang said that he had performed his obligations in strict accordance with the agreements, but actually, Zhang still owed 2 million yuan of stock right assignment money to Wang until Zhang brought the lawsuit. The circumstance of “recognition by Wang's agents by signature” as alleged by Zhang did not exist. In fact, it was on the morning of December 31, 2004 that Wang appointed the accounting staff to obtain the stock assignment money from Zhang. But Zhang appointed persons to create difficulties with various excuses. It was not until about 9:00 PM in the evening that Zhang issued a check at the value of 38 million yuan and delivered it to Wang's persons, and meanwhile said that the remaining 2 million yuan should be settled after the completion of the share assignment procedures was confirmed. Zhang also demanded Wang's persons to write down the above said contents into the receipt, otherwise he would not deliver the check. Under that circumstance, Wang's persons signed the receipt without getting consent from Wang. However, the signature merely manifested that Wang's persons confirmed the receipt of the check at the value of 38 million yuan, but it did not mean that they recognized Zhang could delay in paying 2 million yuan. Hence, the circumstance that “the remaining 2 million yuan shall be settled after the completion of the share assignment procedures is confirmed” did not exist. According to the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” concluded between both parties, any amendment or supplement to the Agreement may not become effective unless both Party A and Party B reached the consensus in writing, and Wang's persons had no right to decide without Wang's recognition. Zhang's statement on his performance of the Agreement was not true, and Wang did not breach the Agreement actually. On December 31, 2004, Wang did not draw the money in person due to some reason, and the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” concluded between both parties did not require the party concerned to draw the money in person, either. Whereas Zhang said the paid 38 million yuan would not arrive at the account until January 4, 2005, and there was still 2 million yuan unpaid, the “Notification on Recovering Shares” sent by Wang on January 8, 2005 was a normal reaction to Zhang's failure to perform the agreement timely and fully, and a reasonable act, as well, not breach of the agreement. After the “Notification on Recovering Shares” was sent, it did not actually function to recover the shares or to grant authorization. Since Wang sent the notification, unless the shares in question were not assigned as they were still within the prohibited period prescribed in law, Zhang had been normally exercising the shareholder's right and director's right of Pudong Company upon Wang's authorization. (III) It was obviously unfair for both parties to conclude the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” and the “Agreement on Management for the Transition Period”. The above said agreements contain many clauses on unilaterally aggravating Wang's burdens. For example, as required by Article 8 of the “Agreement on Assignment of Shares” on the liabilities for breach of contract, Zhang shall pay 415 million yuan of special compensation only in case of fundamental breach by “unilaterally terminating the Agreement in advance”, while Wang shall pay 415 million yuan of special compensation in any case of breach by “violating Article 6 of the Agreement and other relevant clauses.”@#
．．．．．．

张桂平诉王华股权转让合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、公司法原第一百四十七条第一款关于“发起人持有的本公司股份，自公司成立之日起三年内不得转让”的规定，旨在防范发起人利用公司设立谋取不当利益，并通过转让股份逃避发起人可能承担的法律责任。@#
二、股份有限公司的发起人在公司成立后三年内，与他人签订股权转让协议，约定待公司成立三年后为受让方办理股权过户手续，并在协议中约定将股权委托受让方行使的，该股权转让合同不违反公司法原第一百四十七条第一款的规定。协议双方在公司法所规定的发起人股份禁售期内，将股权委托给未来的股权受让方行使，也并不违反法律的强制性规定，且在双方正式办理股权登记过户前，上述行为并不能免除转让股份的发起人的法律责任，也不能免除其股东责任。因此，上述股权转让合同应认定为合法有效。@#
@#
原告(反诉被告)：张桂平，男，55岁，苏宁环球集团董事长，住江苏省南京市北京西路。@#
被告(反诉原告)：王华，男，45岁，江苏金盛集团董事长，住江苏省南京市中山北路。@#
原告张桂平因与被告王华发生股权转让合同纠纷，向江苏省高级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告张桂平诉称：原告与被告王华都是南京浦东建设发展股份有限公司(以下简称浦东公司)的发起人、股东。2002年9月20日浦东公司成立，原告出资1800万元，占浦东公司1800万股，持股比例为 18％；被告出资1700万元，占1700万股，持股比例为17％。浦东公司成立后，因项目开发需要增资，公司注册资本由1亿元增加到2亿元。原告增资到6400万元，持股比例达到32％，被告增资到3400万元，持股比例仍为17％。2004年6月起，被告几次主动与原告联系，希望将其持有的浦东公司全部股份转让给原告。经过协商，原告同意以8300万元溢价受让被告持有的全部股份，这一价格是被告实际投入的2．44倍。2004年10月22日，双方正式签署了《股份转让协议》，被告承诺在股份转让手续办理完毕之前，授权原告代行被告作为股东的一切权利，承担一切义务。如原告擅自终止本协议，则向被告支付特别赔偿金 4．15亿元；被告如有违约行为，也应向原告支付4．15亿元特别赔偿金。由于双方当事人均为浦东公司发起人之一，《股权转让协议》签订时，公司成立尚不满三年，为保证股权合法顺利地转让，双方还签订了《过渡期经营管理协议》。上述协议签订后，原告严格按约定履行了义务。截至2004年12月31日，原告一共向被告支付了8100万元。尚余的200万元，根据被告代理人的签字，要留待股份转让手续完备确认后结算。但2005年1月8日，被告向原告发出《关于收回股份的通知》，声称原告资金延迟到账和少付200万元的行为构成根本性违约，同时废除其与原告签署的全部协议和授权委托书。被告在收取8100万元后毁约的行为有失诚信，请求法院依法判令被告继续履行双方签订的《股份转让协议》和《过渡期经营管理协议》，并依照《股份转让协议》中的约定向原告支付特别赔偿金人民币41 500万元。@#
被告王华辩称：一、原告张桂平与被告签署的《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》违反了法律强制性规定和《南京浦东建设发展股份有限公司章程》(以下简称《浦东公司章程》)的规定，为无效协议。被告既是浦东公司发起人，也是浦东公司董事，且双方签署《股份转让协议》时，距浦东公司成立不足三年。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》(以下简称公司法)第一百四十七条的规定，股份有限公司的发起人持有的本公司股份，自公司成立之日起三年内不得转让，公司董事、监事、经理应当向公司申报所持有的本公司的股份，并在任职期间内不得转让。《浦东公司章程》第二十八条亦规定：“发起人持有的公司股票自公司成立之日起三年以内不得转让。”据此，被告持有的股份在《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》签订时，尚不能转让。原告为了达到形式上不转移讼争股权的归属，而实际上能立即行使讼争股权的目的，规避法律，在上述协议中约定，在被告实际转让股权之前，将自己享有的浦东公司股东权利(包括收益权)、董事权利全部授权给原告行使。通过此举，使得原告实际享有并行使了被告拥有的浦东公司股权，且被告实质上也已经履行了协议约定的义务，因此，讼争股份的股东权利、义务已经全部转移由原告享有和承担。因此，双方签署的《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》明显规避法律强制性规定以及公司章程的约定，属无效协议。二、即使《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》有效，张桂平也无权要求被告承担违约特别赔偿金，原告关于协议履行情况的陈述与事实不符，其所称被告违约没有事实根据。原告称已经严格按约定履行了自己的义务，实际情况是直到原告起诉时，原告仍欠被告股权转让款200万元。原告所称“被告代理人签字认可”的情形不存在。事实是在2004年12月31日上午，被告委派财务人员到原告处领取股权转让款。但原告指派人员以种种理由故意刁难，直至当日晚9时许，原告才开出3800万元转账支票交给被告方人员，同时称余下200万元要留待股份转让手续完备确认后结算并要求被告方有关人员将上述内容写进收条，否则支票不予交付。在此情形下，被告方有关人员在未经被告同意的情况下签署了收条。但是，该签字只是表明被告方人员确认收到3800万元支票，并不代表其认可原告可以少付 200万元，不存在“尚余200万元，留待股份转让手续完备确认后结算”的情形。根据原、被告双方签署的《股份转让协议》，协议的任何修改或补充须经甲乙双方书面签订协议方能生效，被告委派的人员无被告本人的认可无权擅自决定。原告关于协议履行情况的陈述不符合事实，且被告并无违约行为。2004年12月31日，被告本人没有亲自到场取款事出有因，且双方签署的《股份转让协议》并未要求必须本人亲自到场取钱。鉴于原告称已经支付的3800万元实际在2005年1月4日才到账，且还有 200万元款项未付，故被告于2005年1月 8日发出《关于收回股份的通知》是对原告既不按时，也不全面履约行为的正常反应，是合理行为，而不是违约行为。《关于收回股份的通知》发出后，实际上并未起到收回股份和有关授权的效果。自被告发出该通知后至今，除了讼争股份因仍在法律规定的禁止转让期内而没有过户外，被告授权给原告行使的浦东公司股东权及董事权，原告均在正常行使。三、双方签订《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》显失公平。上述协议中存在着大量单方面加重被告负担的条款，如《股份转让协议》第八条违约责任约定中，原告只有在“擅自提前终止本协议”这一根本违约的情形下，才会支付41 500万元特别赔偿金，而被告却在“违反本协议第六条及其他有关条款”的任何违约情形下，均要支付41 500万元特别赔偿金。@#
2005年6月7日，被告王华提起反诉，认为其与本案原告、反诉被告张桂平签署的《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》不但是违反法律强制性规定的无效协议，而且还是王华有权申请法院撤销的、以欺诈手段订立的显失公平的协议，请求判令双方签署的《股份转让协议》及《过渡期经营管理协议》无效并予以撤销。理由是：2004年10月，王华与张桂平就股份转让事宜进行了磋商。在商谈股份转让价格时，张桂平向王华提供了一份浦东公司截至2003年7月1日的财务报表，并称浦东公司当时的净资产值只有0．98元／股，双方应在参考该净资产值的基础上确定本次股份转让的价格。后经商定，双方于2004年10月22日以2．44元／股的价格达成了股份转让协议。2005年4月，因上述股份转让合同履行过程中产生了争议，张桂平对王华提起诉讼。王华在应诉过程中了解到，浦东公司自2002年9月成立以后，于 2002年10月从南京市国土部门受让了位于南京市浦口区的浦东花园地块和威尼斯水城地块，准备用于房地产开发。在2003年9月，张桂平曾经安排编制浦东公司 2003年《盈利预测报告》(已经南京永华会计师事务所有限公司审核)，据该报告反映上述地块截至2003年9月分别增值达 2692．4万元、70 470万元。据此测算，王华持有的股份同期净资产值可达15 763．49万元，即该股份当时的价值已经达4．64元／股。并且，2003年至2004年，南京市的房地产市场仍然持续火爆，土地价格也更是扶摇直上。由此，到2004年10月，王华所持有的浦东公司股份的价值早已超过 4．64元／股。然而，为了骗取浦东公司土地增值的巨额利益，张桂平欺骗王华，在与王华签署协议的过程中，故意仅出示未反映浦东公司股份真实价值的财务报表，隐瞒了上述能反映浦东公司股份真实价值的《盈利预测报告》，致使王华将实际价值超过4．64元／股的浦东公司股份仅以2．44元／股的价格转让给张桂平。因此，张桂平在签订上述有关协议的过程中存在欺诈行为，由此达成的协议显失公平，依法应予撤销。@#
本案原告、反诉被告张桂平答辩称：本案被告、反诉原告王华的反诉请求根本不能成立，请求人民法院依法驳回其反诉请求。第一，张桂平没有对王华进行欺骗隐瞒，股份转让价格是双方最终商定的结果。当时双方商定转让价格时没有、也不可能把一年多前的审计报告作为所谓的参考依据，而且早在2003年7月1日召开的浦东公司第一次临时股东大会上，浦东公司就已经将该份财务审计报告分发给了公司全体股东。由于王华没有出席会议，该份审计报告在会后由其他与会人员带给了王华。此次王华竟然以此作为被欺骗的依据实属荒唐。王华十分清楚浦东公司拥有地块的增值情况。自浦东公司成立以来，王华作为第二大股东，参与过公司的筹建、谈土地、增资等工作，对公司的土地不断增值的情况也十分清楚。在2004年1月，王华与股东许尚龙、朱藻英、吴娟玲等人一起状告南京市工商局，要求撤销浦东公司增资登记和公司股东出资及持有股份的变更登记。而此时浦东公司拥有地块在江苏省省政府出台沿江大开发战略的推动下价格进一步上涨已经成为众所周知的事实。特别需要强调的是，此次转让是王华自己通过多种渠道主动向张桂平提出的，并提出了股份转让的具体价格。王华曾在其参与的状告南京市工商局行政诉讼案二审审理期间不停地用手机短信息的方式，向张桂平表示希望其收购股份的愿望，并以同意撤回此案上诉为筹码，要张桂平尽快考虑他的要求。转让的具体方案也由王华提出，即按照浦东公司另一股东曾焕沙采用的原始股价格乘以四的方式进行，由此得出王华原先 1700万股的四倍价格加上后来增资的 1700万元，合计8500万元。张桂平同意收购，经过协商，最终以8300万元的价格达成转让协议。第二，股份转让协议是双方真实的意思表示，并非显失公平。根据有关法律规定，在订立合同时，一方当事人利用优势或者利用对方没有经验，致使双方的权利与义务明显违反公平、等价有偿原则的，可以认定为显失公平。这是判断合同是否显失公平的法律依据。本案涉及的股份转让协议在订立时根本不存在以上情形。股份转让协议中双方约定的权利义务是对等的，体现了公平、等价有偿的原则。王华声称当时公司股价已经达到每股4．64元仅仅是一种预测，这种预测与实际股权利益之间存在着很大的差距。张桂平接受王华转让股份的请求本身就承受着巨大的风险和压力。为此双方十分慎重地约定了特别赔偿金条款。第三，股份转让的相关协议并没有违反法律强制性规定，是合法有效的。@#
江苏省高级人民法院审理查明：@#
2002年9月20日，浦东公司依法成立，注册资金1亿元人民币。本案原告、反诉被告张桂平与本案被告、反诉原告王华作为浦东公司的发起人、股东，各出资 1800万元、1700万元，占浦东公司股份比例分别为18％、17％。2004年10月22日，王华作为甲方、张桂平作为乙方，签订了《股份转让协议》，约定：甲方确认浦东公司注册资本为20 000万元，截止本协议签订之时，甲方持有浦东公司3400万股自然人股份(占总股本的17％)，甲方同意将上述股份(以下简称标的股份)以每股人民币 2．44元，共计人民币8300万元的价格转让给乙方。同时，甲方须向乙方提供包括全部转让款的税务发票。乙方同意以8300万元受让上述标的股份。双方一致同意，乙方分两期向甲方支付股份转让金8300万元。本合同生效后10日内，乙方向甲方支付 4300万元，在此之前乙方根据《过渡期经营管理协议》已经向甲方支付的定金2000万元自动充抵股份转让金。2004年12月 31日前，乙方向甲方支付其余股份转让金 4000万元。协议第四、五条约定，双方应在签订协议的同时开始办理股份转让期授权委托手续。协议签订之日起至甲方所持标的股份按期转让于乙方名下止的期间为过渡期，有关过渡期内双方的权利和义务，双方另行签订《过渡期经营管理协议》进行约定。协议第六条约定了过渡期及股份转让期间的权利和义务，确认由甲方向乙方出具不可撤销的授权委托书，授权乙方代行浦东公司董事职责、股东权利，并不得干涉、干扰乙方行使标的股份的股东权利，未经乙方书面同意，甲方不得自行行使或委托任何第三方行使标的股份股东权利、董事权利及其他与标的股份有关的权利；甲方不得提出变更或撤销《股份转让协议》的要求，不得拒绝履行《股份转让协议》规定的义务；乙方有权以甲方代理人身份参加浦东公司股东大会并根据标的股份的股份数额行使表决权和其他股东权利；乙方享受甲方作为浦东公司股东在过渡期内所享有的全部收益权、再行转让权，承担过渡期内的风险等等。协议第七条约定，双方办理完毕股份变更手续后，乙方即取得标的股份，在标的股份项下享有作为浦东公司出资人及股东的相应权利并承担相应的义务。协议第八条约定，如乙方擅自提前终止本协议，乙方应向甲方一次性支付特别赔偿金41 500万元人民币，并应赔偿甲方因此而遭受的经济损失。甲方如违反本协议第六条及其他有关条款规定，也应向乙方支付特别赔偿金人民币41 500万元。乙方同时有权选择解除本协议或要求甲方继续履行本协议。协议第十条约定，甲、乙双方本人签署之日，协议即生效，至依照公司法规定合法有效地将甲方所持有的股份转让于乙方名下之日终止。甲乙双方一致同意，如国家法律和政策变化，修改了股份有限公司发起人股份的转让条件和限制，将按照新的法律和政策的规定相应调整合同的生效时间。但涉及标的股份转让价格、股份份额及其他事项不予变更，仍以本协议约定内容为准。@#
．．．．．．