Shenyin & Wanguo Securities Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Guohong Real Estate Co., Ltd.
(Property ownership dispute)@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Shenyin & Wanguo Securities Co., Ltd., domiciled at Changshu Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Ding Guorong, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Guohong Real Estate Co., Ltd., domiciled at Fengyang Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Qian Shixiong, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Third Party: Fumin Branch of Bank of Shanghai Co., Ltd., domiciled at Jiangxi Middle Road, Shanghai.@#
Person in Charge: Quan Guoshun, president of this branch.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The plaintiff, Shenyin & Wanguo Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shenyin & Wanguo”), instituted an action in the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai against the defendant, Shanghai Guohong Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Guohong Company”), for disputes over property ownership. During the trial of this case, Fumin Branch of Bank of Shanghai Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Fumin Branch”) applied to the court for participating in this action. On February 29, 2008, the court added Fumin Branch as a third party to this case.@#
The plaintiff, Shenyin & Wanguo, claimed that: Before October 2000, it was among the top five shareholders of Shanghai Join Buy Holding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shanghai Join Buy”), owning 4,354,560 legal person shares in this company (ticker symbol: 600838). Pursuant to Article 15 of the Administrative Measures for the Stock Underwriting Services of Securities Trading Institutions issued in June 1996, a securities trading institution which held 7% or more of the shares of an enterprise or was among the top five shareholders of an enterprise should not serve as the lead underwriter or a co-lead underwriter of this enterprise. To become the lead underwriter of Shanghai Join Buy, on October 13, 2000, Shenyin & Wanguo registered its 4 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy under the name of Guohong Company. Afterwards, such 4 million legal person shares registered under the name of Guohong Company increased to 6 million ones as a result of distribution of bonus shares. From March 1, 2000, the plaintiff became the underwriter of Shanghai Join Buy for its capital increase in the form of a right issue and completed the right issue on March 15, 2001. To avoid potential violations, Shenyin & Wanguo authorized another company to hold shares for it, and such shares would be returned to it generally one year after completion of underwriting. However, on September 30, 2001, the China Securities Regulatory Commission issued the Notice on Strengthening the Regulation and Management of Agreement-based Transfer of Non-tradable Shares of Listed Companies, which provided that stock exchanges and securities depository and clearing companies should, without exception, not conduct share transfer and transfer registration formalities for any agreement-based transfer of non-tradable shares of listed companies not in compliance with the business rules of stock exchanges and securities depository and clearing companies. As a result, the aforesaid legal person shares held by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff could not be returned to the plaintiff. On September 22, 2006, the defendant issued a letter of commitment, promising to return all 6 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy and corresponding fruits to the plaintiff. In early 2007, the aforesaid legal person shares became tradable on the stock exchange, but the defendant had not returned them to the plaintiff so far. Therefore, the plaintiff requested that the court order the defendant to return the 6 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy registered under the name of the defendant to the plaintiff.@#
Shenyin & Wanguo submitted the following evidence:@#
1. A register of shareholders to prove the shareholder status of Shenyin & Wanguo. 2. The Report on Transferring the Legal Person Shares of Tunnel Ltd and Shanghai Join Buy. 3. The machine-readable archives of the plaintiff, Shanghai Baoding Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Baoding Company”) and Shanghai Wanguo Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wanguo Company”). Evidence 1 to 3 proved that the plaintiff had to register the legal person shares at issue to the defendant in order to circumvent the regulatory obstacles at that time and the transfer in 2000 by the plaintiff and the defendant was only a nominal transfer without any intention on the trading of the legal person shares at issue. 4. The notice on approving the profit distribution and increase of capitalization of Shanghai Join Buy with additional paid-in capital in 2000. 5. The table of quantities of registered securities held by investors. Evidence 4 to 5 proved that after right issues and distribution of bonus shares during many years, the legal person shares at issue held by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff had increased to 6 million shares when the plaintiff instituted this action. 6. The Letter of Commitment issued by the defendant on September 22, 2006, in which the defendant acknowledged that the plaintiff was the actual owner of the legal person shares at issue. 7. The attendance registers for the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Join Buy (2001-2004) and the proxy forms for the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Join Buy in 2005 and 2006, which proved that the plaintiff actually exercised its shareholder rights during the period when Guohong Company held the legal person shares at issue on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the actual owner of such shares. 8. The annual industrial and commercial inspection materials and audit reports of the defendant from 2000 to 2006, which proved that the defendant was a small private real estate company, its industrial and commercial registration indicated that this company suffered losses over years and could not afford the legal person shares at issue and there was no record of such purchase in its account books. Therefore, it was actually impossible that the share transfer between the plaintiff and the defendant was a transfer for trading purposes. 9. Newspaper articles, which proved that there were a number of current cases where legal person shares were returned to their actual owners. 10. Records of shareholding changes for registered securities held by investors, which proved that the plaintiff's 4 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy under the name of the defendant had increased to 6 million after distribution of bonus shares, such legal person shares had been registered to the plaintiff all along before October 13, 2000 and the plaintiff registered these shares to the defendant after the said date through a transfer not for trading purposes. 11. A letter from Baoding Company, proving that Baoding Company, the parent company of the defendant, certified that such 6 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy registered to the defendant were owned by the plaintiff. 12. A letter sent by the defendant to the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai, in which the defendant admitted that the 6 million legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy registered under its name were owned by the plaintiff. 13. Certificates of Shenyin & Wanguo, credit slips for bank transfer and stubs of bank transfer checks, which proved that the plaintiff purchased the legal person shares at issue in 1994. 14. A certificate issued by Shanghai Join Buy on August 28, 2007, which proved that the plaintiff attended the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Join Buy each year and exercised its voting rights. 15. An overview of shareholding changes (1999) and an application for custody of original non-tradable shares for the share reform of “G Join Buy,” which proved that the 6 million legal person shares registered to the defendant were owned by the plaintiff. 16. Three copies of labor contracts, which proved that the signatories at the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Join Buy on behalf of the defendant were employees of the plaintiff. 17. Instructions for a right issue, which proved the source of the plaintiff's current 6,531,840 legal person shares of Shanghai Join Buy. 18. An agency agreement, which proved that the plaintiff, as authorized by Shanghai Join Buy, served as the lead underwriter of Shanghai Join Buy for its right issue. 19. An initial opinion from the China Securities Regulatory Commission on a right issue, which proved that the China Securities Regulatory Commission had consented to a right issue of Shanghai Join Buy. 20. A notice (No. 119 [2001]) issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, which proved that the China Securities Regulatory Commission had prohibited transfer of legal person shares of a joint stock company since 2001. 21. Machine-readable archives to prove the registration matters and contributors of Shanghai Join Buy. 22. An official reply on approving Shanghai Join Buy's application for a right issue, which proved that the China Securities Regulatory Commission had officially approved the company's application for a right issue. 23. Announcements on the resolution of the 3rd Meeting of the 3rd Board of Directors of Shanghai Join Buy and the resolution of the 7th Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Join Buy, which proved that the plaintiff was the underwriter for a right issue of Shanghai Join Buy and the right issue procedure ended on March 15, 2001. 24. A capital verification report, which proved that the plaintiff transferred a total of 261,626,374.33 yuan into the account of Shanghai Join Buy in three installments on March 2, March 7 and March 13, 2001 respectively. 25. The resolutions of the 1st Meeting of the 3rd Board of Directors and Board of Supervisors of Shanghai Join Buy, which proved the name lists of the members of the Board of Directors and Board of Supervisors of Shanghai Join Buy. 26. Counter service guide on the securities pledge service, which proved that securities pledge must be notarized.@#
．．．．．． | | 申银万国证券股份有限公司诉上海国宏置业有限公司财产权属纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
一、股权的挂靠或代持行为，也就是通常意义上的法人股隐名持有。法人股隐名持有存在实际出资人和挂名持有人，双方应签订相应的协议以确定双方的关系，从而否定挂名股东的股东权利。对于一方原本就是法人股的所有人，对方则是通过有偿转让的方式取得法人股的所有权，双方所签订的是法人股转让协议，协议中确定了转让对价以及所有权的转移问题的，不属于股权的代持或挂靠，可以认定双方是通过出售方式转移法人股的所有权，即使受让方没有支付过任何对价，出让方也已丧失了对系争法人股的所有权，而只能根据转让协议主张相应的债权。@#
二、根据我国《公司法》和《证券法》的相关规定，公司股权转让应办理变更登记手续，以取得对外的公示效力，否则不得对抗第三人。同时，根据《证券法
@#
原告：申银万国证券股份有限公司。@#
法定代表人：丁国荣，该公司董事长。@#
被告：上海国宏置业有限公司。@#
法定代表人：钱师雄，该公司董事长。@#
第三人：上海银行股份有限公司福民支行。@#
负责人：全国顺，该支行行长。@#
@#
原告申银万国证券股份有限公司(以下简称申银万国)因与被告上海国宏置业有限公司(以下简称国宏公司)发生财产权属纠纷，向上海市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。审理中，上海银行股份有限公司福民支行(以下简称福民支行)向法院申请参加诉讼。2008年2月29日，法院追加福民支行为本案第三人参加诉讼。@#
原告申银万国诉称：2000年10月之前，原告是上海九百股份有限公司(以下简称上海九百)前五大股东，拥有上海九百法人股(证券代码600838)4 354 560股。 1996年6月颁布的《证券经营机构股票承销业务管理办法》第十五条规定，证券经营机构持有企业7％以上股份，或者其前五位股东之一，不得成为该企业的主承销商或副主承销商。原告为了成为上海九百配股的主承销商，于2000年10月13日，将其所拥有的上海九百法人股中的400万股挂靠到被告国宏公司名下。挂靠期间经送股，国宏公司名下的400万股上海九百法人股增至600万股。2000年3月1日起，原告成为上海九百2000年增资配股的承销商，并于2001年3月15日完成配股事宜。为了避嫌，原告让其他公司代持股票，一般在承销工作完成一年后将股票转回。2001年 9月30日，中国证监会发布了《关于加强对上市公司非流通股协议转让的通知》，规定对未按照证券交易所、证券登记结算公司有关业务规则进行的上市公司非流通股协议转让的，证券交易所、证券登记结算公司一律不得办理股份转让、过户登记手续。至此，由被告代持的上述法人股无法转回至原告名下。2006年9月22日，被告出具承诺书，承诺将其代持的上海九百法人股 600万股及相应的孳息全部归还原告。上述法人股在2007年年初上市流通，但被告至今未将上述法人股转回给原告。故请求判令确认被告名下的600万股上海九百法人股归原告所有。@#
原告申银万国提供了如下证据：@#
1．原告申银万国股东名册；2．关于转让隧道股份和上海九百法人股事宜的报告；3．原告及上海宝鼎投资股份有限公司 (以下简称宝鼎公司)、上海万国企业发展有限公司(以下简称万国公司)档案机读材料，上述证据1-3证明原告将系争法人股挂靠在被告国宏公司名下，实为规避当时监管障碍不得已而为之，原、被告于2000年完成的过户行为仅是完成名义上的转换，双方并没有对系争法人股所有权进行交易、买卖的合意；4．关于核准上海九百 2000年度利润分配及资本公积金转赠股本的通知；5．投资者记名证券持有数量表，上述证据4、5证明系争法人股经历多年配股、分红股等，截至原告起诉时，原告挂靠的法人股已增至600万股；6．被告于2006年9月22日出具的承诺书，证明被告承认，系争法人股的所有权人实际为原告；7． 2001-2004年度上海九百股东大会签到名册、上海九百2005年、2006年股东大会的授权委托书，证明挂靠期间原告一直实际行使股东权利，表明了原告是该部分法人股的实际所有人；8．被告2000-2006年度的工商年检资料及审计报告，证明被告是一家小型私营房地产公司，其工商登记显示该公司历年处于亏损状态，根本无资金购买系争法人股，被告的会计账务上对此也没有任何记载，可见原、被告之间发生的股权过户行为于事实上不可能是交易转让行为；9．有关报刊上刊登的文章，证明目前出现了大量的法人股回归实际所有人的案例；10．投资者记名证券持有变动记录，证明原告挂靠在被告国宏公司名下的400万股上海九百法人股通过送股增加到600万股，2000年10月13日之前上海九百法人股一直在原告名下，之后原告将系争法人股挂靠于被告名下，过户类型为非交易变动；11．宝鼎公司的函，证明被告的母公司宝鼎公司证明被告名下的600万股上海九百法人股为原告所有；12．被告致上海市黄浦区人民法院的函，证明被告自认其名下的600万股上海九百法人股为原告所有； 13．申银万国凭证、转账贷方传票及银行转账支票存根，证明原告于1994年购入上海九百法人股；14．上海九百于2007年8月 28日出具的证明，证明原告每年出席上海九百的股东大会，并行使表决权；15．股权变动情况介绍(1999年度)、积极争取“G九百”股改原非流通股份托管工作的申请，旨在证明被告名下的600万股上海九百法人股为原告所有；16．劳动合同三份，证明代表被告参加上海九百股东大会并签字的系原告员工；17．配股说明，证明原告现有 6 531 840股上海九百法人股的来源；18．委托代理协议书，证明原告接受委托担任上海九百配股的主承销商；19．证监会配股初审意见，证明证监会同意上海九百进行配股；20．证监会证监发[2001]119号通知，证明证监会于2001年开始禁止股份公司的法人股转让；21．档案机读材料，证明上海九百的登记事项及出资者情况；22．关于上海九百申请配股的批复，证明证监会核准上海九百配股申请；23．上海九百董事会三届三次会议决议、第七次股东大会(1999年年会)决议公告，证明原告是上海九百配股提供商，配股程序的截止日期为2001年 3月15日；24．验资报告，证明原告分别于 2001年3月2日、3月7日、3月13日打入上海九百共计人民币261 626 374．33元；25．上海九百三届一次董事、监事会决议，证明上海九百董事会、监事会人员名单；26．营业大厅业务指南证券质押业务，证明证券质押业务必须进行公证。@#
被告国宏公司对于原告申银万国的诉讼请求及相关的事实和理由均不持异议，称被告取得系争法人股的确没有向原告支付过对价。@#
第三人福民支行述称：原告申银万国称被告国宏公司为其代持系争法人股没有任何事实依据。原告和被告恶意串通的目的是为了规避法院的强制执行。原、被告之间签订了法人股转让协议书及质押协议书，从两份协议的内容来看，被告于2000年10月13日获得系争法人股时的对价为每股人民币1．60元，既然有成交价，则不可能是挂靠或代持关系。现原、被告对于诉请以及事实和理由没有任何争议，故本案不属法院受理的范围。请求法院对于原告的诉请不予支持。@#
第三人福民支行提供了如下证据：@#
1．投资者记名证券冻结情况表及投资者记名证券持有数量表；2．(2005)黄执字第2280号民事裁定书、(2002)黄执字第 3866号民事裁定书、(2002)黄民二(商)初字第1655号民事判决书、(2002)沪二中民三商初字第343号民事调解书，证明被告国宏公司名下的系争法人股已被上海市黄浦区人民法院依法冻结；2．原告申银万国与被告于2005年7月签订的协议书；3．经第三人福民支行申请法院调取的经公证的法人股转让协议书以及相关过户手续材料、还款质押协议以及相关质押登记手续材料，上述证据2、3证明原、被告之间已完成法人股转让手续，系争法人股属被告所有，现原、被告之间存在的是债权债务关系。@#
上海市第二人民法院依法组织了质证。@#
原告申银万国对于第三人福民支行提供的证据的真实性没有异议，但原告认为：法人股转让协议书是中国证券登记结算有限责任公司上海分公司(以下简称中登公司)提供的格式文本，在中登公司办理股票转让、挂靠、代持等所有手续都必须签订这样一份协议，且需要办理公证手续。当时原告为了承接上海九百配股的业务，只好将系争法人股转到被告国宏公司名下。2001年9月30日，证监会发布禁止非流通股协议转让的通知后，为防止被告损害原告利益，双方签订了质押协议，并办理了相关的质押登记手续，将系争法人股质押给原告。所有的手续均是按照中登公司的要求来办理。至于协议书则是为了继续质押股票签订的。故法人股转让协议书、质押协议以及协议书均不是原、被告的真实意思表示。@#
被告国宏公司对于原告申银万国以及第三人福民支行提供的证据的真实性均予以确认。@#
第三人福民支行对于原告申银万国提供的证据认为：(1)对于证据1，公司的股东是变化的，该名册未注明时间，原告目前仍是上海九百的股东，故其名字出现在股东名册里与本案没有关联性；(2)对于证据 2，该报告是原告和被告国宏公司的共同股东宝鼎公司出具，该报告是宝鼎公司为了帮助下属子公司逃避债务而事后补的一份证据，不具有客观真实性，且该份报告中也已明确被告目前持有的股票是从原告处受让而来；(3)对于证据3，从工商材料中足以显示原、被告与宝鼎公司、万国公司之间是具有股权投资关系的关联企业，故本案的处理结果与关联各方具有直接的利害关系；(4)对于证据4、5，股票数量的变动与原告无任何事实和法律上的联系；(5)对于证据6，原、被告均称400万股法人股系从原告处受让而来，但双方均未向法院提供相关的转让协议，被告书面承诺的内容与中登公司记载的内容不一致，应以登记信息为准；(6)对于证据7，签到名册中既有原告的名字，也有被告的名字，不能证明原告始终在行使系争股权的股东权利，授权委托书也不能证明原告在独立以自己的名义行使被告所有股权的股东权利；(7)对于证据8，工商部门仅是备案单位，且中登公司已将系争法人股的所有人记载为被告，原告以被告账册中没有记载来对抗中登公司登记内容是不符合事实的；(8)证据9与本案无关；(9)对于证据10，该记录上记载为非交易变动，但不能证明原、被告之间系挂靠关系，况且被告已将该部分法人股进行了质押登记，说明被告是该部分法人股的实际权利人，原告仅是债权人；(10)对于证据11、12，宝鼎公司系原、被告双方的股东，与本案及执行案件有直接的利害关系，宝鼎公司的陈述不能作为认定本案事实的依据；(11)证据13与本案无关，只能证明原告于1994年购入法人股的事实；(12)对于证据14，只能证明1999年之前，原告持有上海九百法人股4 354 560股的事实，不能证明原告一直以自己的名义委托代表行使被告持有股份的股东权利；(13)对于证据15，不能证明原告享有系争法人股的所有权；(14)对于证据16，无法从劳动合同证明杨淳系原告职工，朱燕、姚姝敏、杨淳曾受托出席上海九百股东会议是基于原、被告均是公司股东的事实；(15)证据 17由原告自行制作，与本案无关；(16)对于证据18的真实性没有异议，但与本案无关，不涉及系争法人股所有权的确认问题； (17)对于证据19-26的真实性均无异议，但和本案无关联性。@#
．．．．．． |