>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang v. Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. (disputes over the validity of a resolution of the shareholders' meeting and capital increase)
绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋诉绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司股东会决议效力及公司增资纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang v. Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. (disputes over the validity of a resolution of the shareholders' meeting and capital increase)
(disputes over the validity of a resolution of the shareholders' meeting and capital increase)
绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋诉绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司股东会决议效力及公司增资纠纷案

Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang v. Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd.
(Disputes over the validity of a resolution of the shareholders' meeting and capital increase)

 

绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋诉绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司股东会决议效力及公司增资纠纷案

[Summary] [裁判摘要]
1. In civil and commercial legal relations, a company as the actor may act through two phases. The first is the formation of intention within the company as usually embodied in resolutions of the board of shareholders or the board of directors; the other is the expression of intention by the company externally as usually embodied in contracts signed externally by the company. Out of the consideration to protect bona fide third parties and maintain transaction safety, a company should be bound by its expression of intention as long as its expression of intention is not invalid, even if the formation of intention within the company is flawed. 一、在民商事法律关系中,公司作为行为主体实施法律行为的过程可以划分为两个层次,一是公司内部的意思形成阶段,通常表现为股东会或董事会决议;二是公司对外作出意思表示的阶段,通常表现为公司对外签订的合同。出于保护善意第三人和维护交易安全的考虑,在公司内部意思形成过程存在瑕疵的情况下,只要对外的表示行为不存在无效的情形,公司就应受其表示行为的制约。
2. According to Article 35 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the shareholders of a company have the preemptive right to subscribe for any capital increase of the company in proportion to the company's paid-in capital. In nature, a shareholder's preemptive right to subscribe for the increase should be a right to cause unilateral changes in legal relations. None of the existing laws clearly provides for a period for exercising the right. However, for the sake of transaction safety and stable economic order, a people's court should decide a reasonable period for exercising the right and reject a claim for exercising the right beyond the reasonable period after taking into account the rules and characteristics of commercial acts. 二、根据《中华人民共和国公司法》第三十五条的规定,公司新增资本时,股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。从权利性质上来看,股东对于新增资本的优先认缴权应属形成权。现行法律并未明确规定该项权利的行使期限,但从维护交易安全和稳定经济秩序的角度出发,结合商事行为的规则和特点,人民法院在处理相关案件时应限定该项权利行使的合理期间,对于超出合理期间行使优先认缴权的主张不予支持。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
Civil judgment 民事判决书
No. 48 [2010], Civil, Direct Retrial (2010)民提字第48号
BASIC FACTS 
Retrial petitioner (defendant and appellee): Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd., at: Tower A, Torch Plaza, High-Tech Zone, Mianyang City, Sichuan Province 申请再审人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司。
Legal representative: Chen Mugao, board chairman 法定代表人:陈木高,董事长。
Attorney: Hua Ping, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:华萍,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Xia Huimin, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:夏惠民,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Retrial petitioner (third party and appellee): Fujian Gusheng Investment Co., Ltd., at: Suites A-5 ad 6, 14F, International Plaza, Wusi Road, Gulou District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province 申请再审人(一审第三人、二审被上诉人):福建省固生投资有限公司。
Legal representative: Chen Mugao, board chairman 法定代表人:陈木高,董事长。
Attorney: Hua Ping, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:华萍,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Xia Huimin, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:夏惠民,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Retrial petitioner (third party and appellee): Chen Mugao, male, Han Chinese, born on July 16, 1947, living at Suite 405, Tower 1, Zuo Hai Ming Shi, 96 Meifeng Branch Road, Gulou District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, ID No.: 352102194707160410 申请再审人(一审第三人、二审被上诉人):陈木高。
Attorney: Hua Ping, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:华萍,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Xia Huimin, lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun Law Firm 委托代理人:夏惠民,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Respondent (plaintiff and appellant): Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd., at: Tower B, 12F, Unit 1, Jinyang Apartment, 133 Changhong Avenue, Fucheng District, Mianyang City, Sichuan Province 被申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):绵阳市红日实业有限公司。
Legal representative: Jiang Yang, board chairman and general manager 法定代表人:蒋洋,董事长兼总经理。
Attorney: Yao Huijuan, lawyer of Beijing Dongyuan Law Firm 委托代理人:姚惠娟,北京市东元律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Wu Hongshun, lawyer of Beijing Dongyuan Law Firm 委托代理人:吴宏顺,北京市东元律师事务所律师。
Respondent (plaintiff and appellant): Jiang Yang, male, Han Chinese, born on March 21, 1962, living at Suite 2-4-1, Building C, Du Shi Gang Wan, 11 Changhong Avenue, Fucheng District, Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, ID No. 510702196203210218 被申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):蒋洋。
Attorney: Yao Huijuan, lawyer of Beijing Dongyuan Law Firm 委托代理人:姚惠娟,北京市东元律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Wu Hongshun, lawyer of Beijing Dongyuan Law Firm 委托代理人:吴宏顺,北京市东元律师事务所律师。
Mianyang High-Tech Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd., Fujian Gusheng Investment Co., Ltd. and Chen Mugao filed a retrial petition with this Court against a civil judgment (No. 515 [2006], Civil, Final, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province for disputes over the validity of a resolution of the shareholders' meeting and the capital increase of Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. This Court issued a civil ruling (No. 1457 [2008], Civil Retrial) on November 16, 2009 to directly retry this case. This Court legally formed a collegial panel comprising presiding judge Zhang Yongjian, judge Lei Jiping, and acting judge Liu Chongli to retry this case. Court clerk Bai Xue kept a record of the trial. The retrial of this case is now concluded. 申请再审人绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司、福建省固生投资有限公司、陈木高为与被申请人绵阳市红日实业有限公司股东会决议效力及公司增资纠纷一案,不服四川省高级人民法院(2006)川民终字第515号民事判决,向本院申请再审。本院于 2009年11月16日以(2008)民申字第 1457号民事裁定,提审本案。本院依法组成由审判员张勇健担任审判长,审判员雷继平、代理审判员刘崇理参加的合议庭进行了审理,书记员白雪担任记录。本案现已审理终结。
The Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, as the court of first instance, found that: Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Kechuang Company”) was founded in July 2001. Before its increase of share capital in December 2003, Kechuang Company's registered capital was 4,753,700 yuan, of which Jiangyang contributed 676,000 yuan or 14.22% as the largest shareholder and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongri Company”) contributed 276,000 yuan or 5.81%. Jiang Yang served as the first board chairman of Kechuang Company. On March 31, 2003, Kechuang Company as Party A, Lin Daye and Chen Mugao together as Party B, and Mianyang High-Tech Development Zone Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as “High-Tech Zone Management Committee”) as Party C entered into an Agreement for Cooperative Development and Construction of Mianyang Jinjiang City Garden (Shiqiaopu Project). On July 2, 2003, the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company unanimously adopted a resolution to elect Li Hong as the board chairman for a term of office of two years. Jiang Yang since served as a director of Kechuang Company. On December 5, 2003, Kechuang Company issued a notice to convene a meeting of shareholder representatives, mainly including the time, venue, participants, observers, and proposals of the meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on December 16, 2003, and the proposals included: (1) a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao; (2) equity transfer inside the company; and (3) nomination of new shareholder representatives, supervisors and accountants of the new Kechuang Company. On the afternoon of December 16, 2003, Jiang Yang and Chang Yi, a proxy of Hongri Company, attended the shareholders' meeting. The votes cast at the meeting of shareholder representatives showed that: Jiang Yang voted for the second proposal and against the first and third proposals; and Chang Yi, on behalf of Hongri Company, voted for the second proposal and the nomination of new accountants and against all other proposals and noted in the comment field that: “A specific framework plan for capital increase should be first prepared under Article 39.2 of the Company Law and discussed and adopted according to the proportion of original shareholders of the company and the increase's proportion to the total capital after the increase before future contributions are decided. The original shareholders' right of investment (contribution) in the Company Law should be respected.” Liang Zhouping kept a record of the shareholders' meeting and organized the meeting minutes. Except Jiang Yang, Hongri Company and four other shareholders who cast abstention votes, all shareholders signed the meeting minutes, which stated that: 23 shareholder representatives should be present, and 22 were present at the meeting; resolutions should be made by voting with open ballots; the agreement on share subscription by Chen Mugao was discussed, and it was agreed that Chen Mugao would be a new shareholder (75.49% affirmative votes, 20.03% negative votes and 4.48% abstention votes); and the equity transfer inside Kechuang Company was approved (100% affirmative votes). The meeting minutes also included six proposals on the manners of cooperation with Chen Mugao, the voting results regarding the nominated new shareholder representatives, supervisors and accountants of the new Kechuang Company, and the recommendation of certain shareholder representatives that the major shareholder of the company should serve as a director of the company. Jiang Yang since served as a supervisor of Kechuang Company. 四川省绵阳市中级人民法院一审查明:绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司(以下简称科创公司)于2001年7月成立。在2003年12月科创公司增资扩股前,公司的注册资金475.37万元。其中蒋洋出资额67.6万元,出资比例14.22%,为公司最大股东;绵阳市红日实业有限公司(以下简称红日公司)出资额27.6万元,出资比例5.81%。科创公司第一届董事长由蒋洋担任。2003年 3月31日,科创公司作为甲方,林大业、陈木高作为乙方,绵阳高新技术产业开发区管理委员会(以下简称高新区管委会)作为丙方,签订了合作开发建设绵阳锦江城市花园的合作协议书(石桥铺项目)。2003年 7月2日,全体股东大会通过选举李红为公司董事长,任期两年的决议。此后蒋洋在科创公司的身份为董事。2003年12月5日,科创公司发出召开股东代表大会的通知,该通知主要记载了开会时间、开会地点、参会人员、列席人员及议题。开会时间定于2003年12月16日下午4:00,议题是:1.关于吸纳陈木高为新股东的问题;2.关于公司内部股权转让问题;3.新科创公司的新股东代表、监事、会计提名等。2003年12月16日下午,蒋洋、红日公司的委托代表常毅出席了股东会。该次股东代表会表决票反映,蒋洋对上述三项议题的第2项投了赞成票,对第1项和第3项投了反对票;红日公司的委托代表常毅对第2项和新会计的提名投了赞成票,其余内容投了反对票,并在意见栏中注明:“应当按照公司法39条第二款规定先就增加资本拿出具体框架方案,按公司原股东所占比重、所增资本所占增资扩股后所占比重先进行讨论通过,再决定将来出资,要考虑原股东享有公司法规定的投资(出资)权利”。该次股东会担任记录的梁周平整理了会议纪要,除蒋洋、红日公司和投弃权票的四名股东未在会议纪要上签名外,其余股东在会议纪要上签名。该纪要中记载:应到股东代表23人,实到22人,以记名方式投票表决形成决议;讨论了陈木高的入股协议,同意吸纳陈木高为新股东(经表决75.49%同意,20.03%反对,4.48%弃权);同意科创公司内部股份转让(经表决100%同意)。纪要还记载了与陈木高合作方式的六点建议和关于新科创公司的新股东代表、监事、会计提名的表决情况及有股东代表建议应由大股东作为公司董事的意见等。此后蒋洋在科创公司的身份为监事。
On December 18, 2003, Kechuang Company as Party A and Chen Mugao as Party B entered into a Share Subscription Agreement, which stated that: Party B agreed to the Share Capital Increase Plan adopted at the shareholders' meeting of Party A, i.e. Party A's original share capital of 4,753,700 shares would increase to 10,907,500 shares. Thus, the 4,753,700 shares held by the original shareholders of Party A would account for 43.6% of the total share capital of 10,907,500 shares; Party B would contribute 8 million yuan to purchase 6,153,800 shares at 1.3 yuan per share, accounting for 56.4% of the total share capital of 10,907,500 shares; the registered capital of Kechuang Company would be changed to 10,907,500 yuan, and the surplus of 1,846,200 over the registered capital would be included in capital reserve; such capital reserve should not be used to cover the operating losses of the previous year, and if such capital reserve is used for share split, the share split would not apply to Party B; within seven days after execution of this agreement, Party B should remit 8 million yuan to the account number specified by Party A; and with seven working days after arrival of the amount, Party A should start to handle business registration procedures for the modification of shareholders, directors, legal representative, and company bylaws, and the modification registration procedures with the taxation and other relevant authorities should be completed within one month. Both parties agreed that the 8 million yuan contributed by Party B should be exclusively used to pay part of the acquisition price of the 376.65 mu residential land parcel located at Shiqiaopu of Mianyang High-Tech Zone acquired through the quotation procedures of the government; after becoming a shareholder, Party B would make an initial investment of 30 million yuan in developing the 376.65 mu residential land project located at Shiqiaopu of Mianyang High-Tech Zone; the cooperation agreement signed by Party A, Party B and the High-Tech Zone Management Committee on March 31, 2003 should remain in force and have the same legal effect as this Agreement; this Agreement should be made in quadruplicate, two copies for Party A and Party B each, and should take effect after being signed by both parties and the payment of 8 million yuan. This Agreement also provided for the composition of the board of directors, collateral, accounting management, profit distribution, and profit/loss sharing. On December 22, 2003, Chen Mugao remitted 8 million yuan as payment for shares to the account specified by Kechuang Company. 2003年12月18日,科创公司为甲方,陈木高为乙方签订了《入股协议书》,该协议主要记载:乙方同意甲方股东大会讨论通过的增资扩股方案,即同意甲方在原股本475.37万股的基础上,将总股本扩大至1090.75万股,由此,甲方原股东所持股本475.37万股占总股本1090.75万股的 43.6%;乙方出资800万元人民币以每股 1.3元认购615.38万股,占总股本1090.75万股的56.4%;科创公司的注册资金相应变更为1090.75万元,超出注册资本的 184.62万元列为资本公积金;该项资本公积金不用于弥补上一年的经营亏损,今后如用于向股东转增股本时,乙方所拥有的股份不享有该权利;本协议签字7天内,乙方应将800万元人民币汇入甲方指定账号,款到7个工作日之内,甲方负责开始办理股东、董事及法定代表人和公司章程等变更的工商登记手续,税务等其他有关部门的变更登记手续于一个月办妥;双方同意乙方投资的800万元人民币专项用于支付甲方通过政府挂牌出让程序已购得的绵阳高新区石桥铺376.65亩住宅用地的部分地价款;乙方入股后预计先期投入3000万元人民币开发绵阳高新区石桥铺376.65亩住宅用地项目;甲乙双方与高新区管委会于2003年3月31日签订的合作协议书继续有效,与本协议具有同等法律效力;本协议一式四份,甲乙双方各执两份,经双方签字且800万元人民币到账后生效,该协议还就董事会组成、抵押担保、财务管理、利润分配和盈亏分担等内容作了约定。 2003年12月22日,陈木高将800万元股金汇入科创公司的指定账户。
On December 22, 2003, Hongri Company delivered to Kechuang Company a Request for Subscribing for the Share Capital Increase of Kechuang Company, mainly stating that: Jiang Yang and Hongri Company enjoyed a preemptive right to subscribe and, under the same terms and conditions in the share capital increase plan, they would like to jointly contribute or one of them would like to contribute 8 million yuan for the share capital increase of Kechuang Company. On December 25, 2003, the industrial and commercial authority issued to Kechuang Company a business license for corporate entity, which stated: Legal representative: Chen Mugao; Registered capital: Ten million nine hundred and seven thousand and five hundred yuan; Business duration: December 25, 2003 to December 24, 2007. On December 25, 2003, the modified bylaws of Kechuang Company stated that: Chen Mugao contributed 6,153,800 yuan or 56.42%; Jiang Yang contributed 676,000 yuan or 6.20%, and Hongri Company contributed 276,000 yuan or 2.53%. On December 26, 2003, Hongri Company submitted to the Industrial and commercial authority of Mianyang High-Tech Zone a Request for Withholding Modification Registration for the Capital Increase and the New Shareholder of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. Chen Mugao since managed Kechuang Company as its board chairman. On March 30, 2005, Kechuang Company applied to the industrial and commercial authority for company modification registration by submitting a report on the recordation registration of amendments to bylaws, the amendments to company bylaws, a share transfer agreement, the share change certificate and receipts issued by Chen Mugao regarding the transfer of his 6,143,800 shares to Fujian Gusheng Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Gusheng Company”) and other materials. The names, contributions and ratios of contribution of shareholders stated in the amendments to bylaws were as follows: Gusheng Company contributed 6,153,800 yuan or 56.42%; Chen Mugao contributed 1,162,400 yuan or 10.66%; Jiang Yang contributed 676,000 yuan or 6.20%; and Hongri Company contributed 276,000 or 2.53%. 2003年12月22日,红日公司向科创公司递交了《关于要求作为科创公司增资扩股增资认缴人的报告》,该报告的主要内容为:主张蒋洋和红日公司享有优先认缴出资的权利,愿意在增资扩股方案的同等条件下,由红日公司与蒋洋共同或由其中一家向科创公司认缴新增资本800万元人民币的出资。2003年12月25日,工商部门签发的科创公司的企业法人营业执照上记载:法定代表人陈木高、注册资本壹仟零玖拾万柒仟伍佰元、营业期限自2003年 12月25日至2007年12月24日。2003年 12月25日科创公司变更后的章程记载:陈木高出资额615.38万元,出资比例 56.42%,蒋洋出资额67.6万元,出资比例 6.20%,红日公司出资额27.6万元,出资比例2.53%。2003年12月26日,红日公司向绵阳高新区工商局递交了《请就绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司新增资本、增加新股东作不予变更登记的报告》。此后,陈木高以科创公司董事长的身份对公司进行经营管理。2005年3月30日,科创公司向工商部门申请办理公司变更登记,提交了关于章程修正案登记备案的报告、公司章程修正案、股份转让协议书、陈木高出具的将 614.38万股股份转让给福建省固生投资有限公司(以下简称固生公司)的股份增减变更证明、收据等材料。章程修正案中记载的股东名称、出资额、出资比例是:固生公司出资额615.38万元、出资比例56.42%;陈木高出资额116.24万元, 出资比例 10.66%;蒋洋出资额67.6万元,出资比例 6.20%;红日公司出资额27.6万元,出资比例2.53%。
On December 12, 2005, Jiang Yang and Hongri Company instituted an action in the court of first instance, requesting the court to confirm that the resolution of Kechuang Company regarding the share subscription by Chen Mugao adopted at the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003 was void, confirm that the Share Subscription Agreement entered into between Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003 was void, and confirm that the plaintiffs had the preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of 8 million yuan and Kechuang Company should compensate them for losses. 2005年12月12日,蒋洋和红日公司向一审法院提起诉讼,请求确认科创公司 2003年12月16日股东会通过的吸纳陈木高为新股东的决议无效,确认科创公司和陈木高2003年12月18日签订的《入股协议书》无效,确认其对800万元新增资本优先认购,科创公司承担其相应损失。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, the court of first instance, held that: Hongri Company and Jiang Yang claimed that the resolution on share subscription by Chen Mugao adopted at the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003, was invalid on the grounds that Kechuang Company notified its shareholders of the shareholders' meeting only 11 days in advance, a violation of Article 44.1 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (as revised in 1999, hereafter referred to as the “Company Law 1999”), which stated that: “To convene a shareholders' meeting, all shareholders shall be notified fifteen days before the meeting is convened,” and that the notice issued to its shareholders was unclear regarding the share capital increase. The facts found in this case indicated that Jiang Yang had multiple titles in this case. He was the legal representative of plaintiff Hongri Company, the largest shareholder and the board chairman of Kechuang Company before July 2, 2003, and the largest shareholder and director of Kechuang Company thereafter until December 16, 2003. During his term of office as the board chairman of Kechuang Company, Kechuang Company entered into a Cooperation Agreement for the Shiqiaopu Project with Chen Mugao, et al., and Jiang Yang attended the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003 and exercised his voting right at the meeting by voting against the proposal of “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao.” Article 39.2 of the Company Law 1999 provided that: “A resolution of the shareholders' meeting regarding the increase or decrease of registered capital, split, merger, dissolution, or modification of corporate form must be made upon affirmative votes of shareholders representing two thirds or more of the voting rights.” The validity of a resolution of a shareholders' meeting depended on whether the shareholders recognized the resolution and the requirements of the Company Law were satisfied, rather than the time and content of a notice of the shareholders' meeting. The facts found indicated that in the resolution dated December 16, 2003, regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao,” the part concerning Kechuang Company's share capital increase of 8 million yuan and Chen Mugao's subscription for the 8 million yuan had been adopted at the shareholders' meeting by shareholders representing 75.49% of the voting rights of Kechuang Company. Therefore, the resolution regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” complied with the aforementioned provision and thus was valid. It was unjustifiable for Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to claim that the resolution regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” was invalid on the grounds that the time of the notice did not comply with the provisions of law and the discussion of the proposal did not comply with the rules of procedure. 四川省绵阳市中级人民法院一审认为:关于科创公司2003年12月16日股东会通过的吸纳陈木高为新股东的决议的效力问题,红日公司和蒋洋主张无效的理由是,科创公司只提前11日通知各股东召开股东会,违反了《中华人民共和国公司法》 (1999年修订,以下简称99公司法)第四十四条第一款“召开股东会议,应当于会议召开十五日以前通知全体股东”的规定,且在增资扩股的问题上通知书也不明确。从本案查明的事实反映,蒋洋在本案中具有多重身份,既是原告红日公司的法定代表人,又在2003年7月2日以前是科创公司的最大股东和董事长,此后至12月16日期间,是科创公司的最大股东和董事。蒋洋在任科创公司董事长期间,科创公司签订了与陈木高等就石桥铺项目进行合作的合作协议,而且参加了2003年12月16日的股东会并对会议议题行使了表决权,对其中“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”的议题投了反对票。根据99公司法三十九条第二款关于“股东会对公司增加或者减少注册资本、分立、合并、解散或者变更公司形式作出决议,必须经代表三分之二以上表决权的股东通过”的规定,股东会决议的效力不取决于股东会议通知的时间及内容,而决定于股东认可并是否达到公司法的要求。查明的事实反映,2003年12月16日“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”的决议中涉及科创公司增资扩股800万元和该800万元增资由陈木高认缴的内容已在股东会上经科创公司75.49%表决权的股东通过。因此“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”的决议符合上述规定,该决议有效。红日公司和蒋洋以通知的时间不符合法律规定,内容讨论不符合议事程序主张“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”决议无效的理由不成立。
Regarding the validity of the Share Subscription Agreement entered into by Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang claimed that the agreement was signed by Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao through malicious collusion in order to harm the shareholders' interests, but according to the facts found by the court of first instance, they failed to provide any evidence on such malicious collusion. In court, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang asserted that the modification registration of Kechuang Company with the industrial and commercial authority made on December 25, 2005 was not true, which, however, involved the legality of a specific administrative action taken by the industrial and commercial authority, a legal relationship not to be heard in this case. Upon investigation, it was found that the Share Subscription Agreement should be a valid agreement, because the parties to the agreement were appropriate, the expression of intention was true, and it was not contrary to the law or the public interest. Therefore, the claim of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang that the Share Subscription Agreement was invalid was unfounded. 关于科创公司与陈木高于2003年12月18日签订的《入股协议书》的效力问题。红日公司和蒋洋主张该协议是科创公司与陈木高恶意串通损害其股东利益而签订的,但根据一审法院查明的事实,其并未提供证据证明该事实存在。庭审中红日公司和蒋洋提出科创公司于2005年12月25日在工商局办理的科创公司变更登记不真实的主张,这涉及工商部门的具体行政行为是否合法的问题,是另一层法律关系,不属本案审理范围。经审查,该《入股协议书》的主体适格,意思表示真实,不违反法律或者社会公共利益,应为有效协议。故红日公司和蒋洋关于《入股协议书》无效的主张不成立。
Regarding whether Hongri Company and Jiang Yang had the preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of 8 million yuan in a resolution adopted at the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003, and whether Kechuang Company should be liable for their losses, Article 33 of the Company Law 1999 provided that: “The shareholders shall receive dividends according to the proportion of contribution. In case of any capital increase of the company, the shareholders shall have the preemptive right to subscribe for such capital increase.” Jiang Yang and Hongri Company, as shareholders of Kechuang Company, should have the preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of the company. However, the Company Law 1999 contained no provision on the term for the shareholders to exercise the preemption right. Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (I), effective from May 9, 2006, provided that: “In case of an action instituted in a people's court for any dispute arising from a civil act or event that occurred before the Company Law takes effect, if there was no specific provision in this regard in any law, regulation or judicial interpretation then existing, the relevant provisions of the Company Law may be applied by reference.” The Company Law of the People's Republic of China as revised in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “new Company Law”) was also silent regarding the term of exercise of a shareholder's preemptive right of subscription, but Article 75.1 of the new Company Law provided that: “Under any of the following circumstances, a shareholder voting against the resolution of the shareholders' meeting may request the company to repurchase the shareholder's equity at a reasonable price,” and paragraph 2 continued to provide that: “If, within 60 days after the resolution of the shareholders' meeting is adopted, the shareholder and the company cannot reach a repurchase agreement, the shareholder may institute an action in a people's court within 90 days after the resolution of the shareholders' meeting is adopted.” This article provided for a dissenting shareholder's right to require repurchase of equity, and in consideration of the reciprocity spirit of the civil law, i.e. the relationship between the company's repurchase of equity from the shareholder and the shareholder's preemptive right to subscription, the shareholder should also have a reasonable term for exercising the right to ensure safe and fair transactions. In view of the facts found in this case, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang filed a request with Kechuang Company for exercising their preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of 8 million yuan on December 22, 2003, but did not institute an action until December 12, 2005. During that period, Chen Mugao transferred its shares accounting for 56.42 of the total stock capital to Gusheng Company and entered into equity transfer agreements with other shareholders, and all of such transfers had undergone transfer registration procedures. Chen Mugao had served as the board chairman of Kechuang Company since December 25, 2003, and the Shiqiaopu Project of Kechuang Company had been quite promising. Therefore, it was unreasonable for Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to institute the action as late as on December 12, 2005. The resolution of the shareholders' meeting dated December 16, 2003, and the Share Subscription Agreement were legal and valid. The reasonable period for Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to claim their preemptive right had passed, and their claims for the preemptive subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan and for loss compensation should not be supported. 关于红日公司和蒋洋能否优先认缴科创公司2003年12月16日股东会通过新增的800万元资本,并由科创公司承担相应损失的问题。按照99公司法三十三条关于“股东按照出资比例分红。公司新增资本时,股东可以优先认缴出资”的规定,蒋洋、红日公司作为科创公司的股东,对公司新增资本享有优先认缴权利。但99公司法对股东优先认缴权的期间未作规定。2006年5月9日起施行的最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(一)》第二条规定:“因公司法实施前有关民事行为或者事件发生纠纷起诉到人民法院的,如当时的法律法规和司法解释没有明确规定时,可以参照适用公司法的有关规定”。2005年修订后的《中华人民共和国公司法》(以下简称新公司法)也未对股东优先认缴权行使期间作规定,但新公司法七十五条第一款规定“有下列情形之一的,对股东会该项决议投反对票的股东可以请求公司按照合理的价格收购其股权”、第二款规定“自股东会会议决议通过之日起六十日内,股东与公司不能达成收购协议的,股东可以自股东会会议决议通过之日起九十日内向人民法院提起诉讼”。该条虽然针对的是异议股东的股权回购请求权,但按照民法精神从对等的关系即公司向股东回购股份与股东向公司优先认缴出资看,后者也应当有一个合理的行使期间,以保障交易的安全和公平。从本案查明的事实看,红日公司和蒋洋在2003年12月22日就向科创公司主张优先认缴新增资本800万元,于2005年12月12日才提起诉讼,这期间,陈木高又将占出资比例 56.42%股份转让给固生公司,其个人又陆续与其他股东签订了股权转让协议,全部办理了变更登记,从2003年12月25日起至今担任了科创公司董事长,科创公司的石桥铺项目前景也已明朗。因此红日公司和蒋洋在2005年12月12日才提起诉讼不合理。2003年12月16日的股东会决议、《入股协议书》合法有效,红日公司和蒋洋主张优先认缴权的合理期间已过,故其请求对800万元资本优先认缴权并赔偿其损失的请求不予支持。
In summary, the resolution of the shareholders' meeting dated December 16, 2003, and the Share Subscription Agreement were legal and valid. When Hongri Company and Jiang Yang claimed their preemptive rights against Kechuang Company on December 22, 2003, the two agreements had already took effect and were being performed, but Hongri Company and Jiang Yang failed to take any further legal measure to exercise their preemptive right. Before this lawsuit was filed, a series of new civil and administrative law relations were formed around Kechuang Company and its equity, generating a range of new transaction relationships. For the sake of protecting transaction safety, the claims of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang in this case should not be supported. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) as follows: The claims of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang should be dismissed; the case acceptance fee for the original trial, 50,010 yuan, and other legal costs, 25,005 yuan, totaling 75,015 yuan, should be jointly assumed by Hongri Company and Jiang Yang. 综上所述,2003年12月16日股东会决议和《入股协议书》合法有效。红日公司和蒋洋在2003年12月22日向科创公司主张优先权时,上述两协议已经生效并已在履行过程中,但红日公司和蒋洋没有及时采取进一步的法律措施实现其优先权。本案起诉前,围绕科创公司和公司股权又发生了一系列新的民事、行政关系,形成了一系列新的交易关系,为保障交易安全,红日公司和蒋洋在本案中的主张不能成立。据此四川省绵阳市中级人民法院以(2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决书判决:驳回红日公司、蒋洋的诉讼请求。第一审案件受理费50 010元,其他诉讼费25 005元,合计 75 015元,由红日公司和蒋洋共同负担。
Hongri Company and Jiang Yang appealed to the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province against the judgment of the court of first instance, asserting that: Kechuang Company notified its shareholders of the shareholders' meeting only 11 days in advance, a violation of its statutory obligation of an 15 days advance notice in the Company Law, and the notice contained no specific plan for the share capital increase of the company and draft of the Share Subscription Agreement. The unexpected voting at the shareholders' meeting violated the rules of procedure. At the shareholders' meeting, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang cast their dissenting votes, agreed to the capital increase of 8 million yuan, but would not waive their preemptive right of subscription. In the resolution of the shareholders' meeting, the part regarding the capital increase of 8 million yuan of the company was valid, but the resolution regarding Chen Mugao as a new shareholder and the Share Subscription Agreement was void for violating their preemptive right of subscription. Since the Company Law did not provide for the time limitation for instituting an action regarding the exercise of the preemptive right of subscription by a shareholder, the two-year limitation set out in the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “General Civil Law”) should be applicable to this case. It was December 22, 2003 that Hongri Company and Jiang Yang became aware of the infringement upon their rights, and the time limitation for instituting an action should commence from that day and end on December 22, 2005. They instituted this action on December 12, 2005, not beyond the time limitation. It was erroneous application of law for the court of first instance to apply, mutatis mutandis, the 90-day period for repurchase of shares by a company from its shareholders. Chen Mugao was the legal representative of Gusheng Company, and Gusheng Company did not acquire the equity in good faith and was not a legitimate shareholder. Therefore, there was no issue of protecting transaction safety. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang requested the court of second instance to revoke the original judgment and render a new judgment according to law. 红日公司和蒋洋不服一审判决,向四川省高级人民法院提起上诉称:科创公司只提前11天通知召开股东会违反了公司法规定提前15天通知的强制性法定义务,且通知内容没有公司增资扩股的具体方案和《入股协议书》草案,股东会中突袭表决,议事程序违法。股东会上红日公司和蒋洋投了反对票,提出同意增资800万元,但不放弃优先出资权。股东会决议中公司增资 800万元有效,但吸纳陈木高为新股东的决议和《入股协议书》因侵犯其优先认缴出资权而无效。公司法对股东行使优先认缴出资权的诉讼时效没有规定,应适用民法通则规定的两年诉讼时效。红日公司和蒋洋知道权利被侵害的时间是2003年12月 22日,诉讼时效从此时起算直至2005年 12月22日才届满,本案于2005年12月 12日提起诉讼,未超过诉讼时效期间。一审判决参照适用公司法对公司回购股东股份所规定的90日,是适用法律错误。陈木高是固生公司法定代表人,固生公司取得股份并非善意,其股东身份也不合法,因此不存在保护交易安全的问题。请求二审法院撤销原判,依法改判。
The appellees, Kechuang Company, Gusheng Company and Chen Mugao, argued that: Although the notice of the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company was not issued in compliance with the 15-day advance notice provision of the Company Law, the validity of its resolutions was not affected, because this provision was a discretional requirement and all of the shareholders of the company attended the meeting on time. The proposal regarding “a prospective shareholders, Chen Mugao” of Kechuang Company meant a private placement of new share capital. The proposal had been adopted upon affirmative votes from shareholders representing two thirds of the voting rights, and Chen Mugao had fulfilled his duty of due care. According to Article 39 of the Company Law 1999, the resolution regarding the said proposal was legal and valid. To increase share capital, Kechuang Company and a new shareholder entered into a Share Subscription Agreement, which was not prohibited by any law and represented the will of the overwhelming majority of its shareholders without violation of Article 33 of the Company Law 1999. When Hongri Company and Jiang Yang filed a request for exercising their preemptive right of subscription, the Share Subscription Agreement had been formed and was being performed and should be a valid agreement. Kechuang Company absorbed Chen Mugao as a new shareholder under the adverse circumstances that it was unable to pay the land price and may forfeit the land to the government. Chen Mugao contributed 8 million yuan for the shares of the company at 1.3 yuan per share at a premium and agreed that, after becoming a shareholder of the company, it would not share as a shareholder the 35% profit payable to Kechuang Company under the cooperation agreement. This Resolution maximized the interests of the company and protected the interests of the original shareholders. Later, Chen Mugao transferred his shares to Gusheng Company by gift and assignment. Both Chen Mugao and Gusheng Company were bona fide third parties. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang attended the board meetings and the shareholders' meetings presided over by Chen Mugao many times and did not take any further legal measures for their preemptive right of subscription during two years, but instituted this action when the company showed some signs of improvement, which was neither reasonable nor righteous. The appellees requested the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. 被上诉人科创公司、固生公司和陈木高答辩称:虽然科创公司召开股东会通知程序不符合公司法关于要提前15天通知的规定,但该条款是任意性规范,且公司股东均准时参加,不影响决议效力。科创公司所提“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”的含义是定向增资扩股,该议题已经三分之二表决权的股东表决通过,陈木高尽到了合理的注意义务,根据99公司法三十九条的规定,该议题的决议合法有效。公司增资扩股,由公司与新股东签订入股协议,法律并无禁止性规定,并且代表了公司绝大多数股东的意志,未违反99公司法

谁敢欺负我的人

三十三条的规定。红日公司和蒋洋提出优先认缴时,《入股协议书》已经成立并在履行过程中,应为有效。科创公司是因公司面临土地价款无法缴纳,土地将被政府收回的困境而吸收陈木高入股,陈木高出资800万元,以 1.3元溢价购股,且承诺成为新股东后不得再以股东身份分享科创公司在合作协议项目中应分得的35%的盈利,该决议使公司利益最大化,保证了原股东利益。以后陈木高将股份以赠与和转让方式转给固生公司,陈木高和固生公司均是善意第三人。而红日公司和蒋洋在长达两年时间内多次参加陈木高主持的董事会和股东会,没有就优先出资权进一步采取法律措施,却在公司稍有起色的情况下提起诉讼,缺乏合理性和正当性。请求驳回上诉,维持原判。
The Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province confirmed the facts found by the court of first instance and further found the following facts: In July 2001, Kechuang Company was founded, with registered capital of 1.56 million and 20 shareholders who were all natural persons. Jiang Yang contributed 520,000 yuan or 33.33% to the company and served as the board chairman. On January 20, 2003, Kechuang Company acquired the 325 mu residential land parcel located in the Shiqiaopu International Business Area of Mianyang High-Tech Zone through the quotation procedures of the government, but neither paid the land transfer price nor acquired the land use right certificate. On March 31, 2003, Kechuang Company entered into the Cooperation Agreement for Shiqiaopu Project with Lin Daye, Chen Mugao and the High-Tech Zone Management Committee, under which Kechuang Company should pay the land transfer price and ensure the project development funds and construction. In September 2003, the board chairman of Kechuang Company was changed to Li Hong, and its registered capital increased by 3,193,700 yuan to 4,753,700 yuan. After the change, the company had a total of 23 shareholders, including two new natural person shareholders and one corporate shareholder, Hongri Company. The capital contribution of Jiang Yang changed from 520,000 yuan to 676,000 yuan or 14.22%, and Hongri Company contributed 276,000 yuan, accounting for 5.81%. The bylaws of Kechuang Company provided that: Where the company increased its capital, its shareholders should have the preemptive right of subscription for the increase; to convene a shareholders' meeting, the company should notify all its shareholders in writing of the meeting 15 days before the meeting is convened, stating the time, venue and content of the meeting; a resolution on the capital increase or decrease of the company should be adopted at the shareholders' meeting. On December 16, 2003, Kechuang Company convened a shareholders' meeting, at which the Share Subscription Agreement regarding the share subscription of Chen Mugao was discussed and the proposal regarding Chen Mugao as a new shareholder was adopted but both Jiang Yang and Hongri Company voted against the proposal. On December 18, 2003, Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao officially entered into the Share Subscription Agreement, under which Chen Mugao should contribute 8 million yuan to subscribe for 6,153,800 shares at 1.3 yuan per share. On December 22, 2003, Chen Mugao remitted 8 million yuan to the account of Kechuang Company as payment for the share subscription but in the name of land price payment, and Hongri Company filed a request for preemptive subscription for the capital increase. On December 25, 2003, Kechuang Company changed its legal representative to Chen Mugao and its registered capital to 10,907,500 yuan, of which Chen Mugao contributed 56.4%. On December 26, 2003, Kechuang Company paid the land price of 8 million yuan. On March 5, 2004, Kechuang Company paid up the land price of 13,020,175 yuan and acquired the land use right certificate. On February 1, 2005, Kechuang Company convened a shareholders' meeting, at which a resolution was adopted regarding the gift of 10,000 shares from Chen Mugao to Gusheng Company. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang attended the meeting and cast abstention votes. On March 1, 2005, Chen Mugao transferred 6,143,800 shares to Gusheng Company, and after such transfer, Gusheng Company held a total of 6,153,800 shares of Kechuang Company. From February 2005 to November 2006, Chen Mugao acquired 3,157,100 shares from other natural person shareholders at 1.2 yuan per share. The shareholder structure of Kechuang Company changed into: Gusheng Company, holding 6,153,800 shares or 56.42%; Chen Mugao, holding 3,157,100 shares or 28.94%; Jiang Yang, holding 676,000 shares or 6.20%; Hongri Company, holding 276,000 shares or 2.53%; and the other 11 natural person shareholders, holding 644,600 shares in total or 5.91%. So far, in the Shiqiaopu Project to be developed by Kechuang Company, only a 200 meters cement road from the urban highway to the site of the project had been paved, and the construction of the project as a whole had not commenced due to dismantlement, relocation, planning and other issues. 四川省高级人民法院对一审法院认定的事实予以确认,并补充认定以下事实: 2001年7月,科创公司成立,注册资本156万元,股东20人,均为自然人,蒋洋出资 52万元,出资比例为33.33%,担任董事长。 2003年1月20日,科创公司通过挂牌出让方式取得绵阳高新区石桥铺国际招商区 325亩住宅项目用地,但没有支付土地出让金,没有取得土地使用权证。2003年3月31日,科创公司与林大业、陈木高、高新区管委会签订石桥铺项目合作协议书,约定由科创公司负责支付地价款,由陈木高负责项目开发资金及建设。同年9月,科创公司董事长变更为李红,新增注册资本 319.37万元,注册资本变更为475.37万元,变更后股东为23位,增加了自然人股东2人和法人股东红日公司。蒋洋出资从 52万元变更为67.6万元,出资比例变为 14.22%,红日公司新出资27.6万元,出资比例为5.81%。科创公司的章程规定:公司新增资本时,股东有优先认缴出资的权利;公司召开股东大会,于会议召开15日以前通知全体股东,通知以书面形式发送,并载明会议时间、地点、内容;股东大会对公司增加减少注册资本作出决议。同年12月 16日,科创公司召开股东会,讨论了陈木高入股的《入股协议书》,通过了吸纳陈木高为新股东的提案,蒋洋和红日公司投反对票。同月18日,科创公司和陈木高签订《入股协议书》,约定由陈木高出资800万元,以每股1.3元认购615.38万股。同月 22日,陈木高以付地款名义向科创公司账户汇入购股款800万元,红日公司要求优先认缴新增资本。同月25日,科创公司变更法定代表人为陈木高,注册资本变为 1090.75万元,陈木高占56.4%。2003年12月26日,科创公司缴纳土地款800万元。 2004年3月5日,科创公司交清全部土地款13 020 175元,取得土地使用证。2005年2月1日,科创公司召开股东会形成决议,通过陈木高将1万股赠与固生公司的提案,红日公司和蒋洋参加会议,投弃权票。同年3月1日,陈木高将614.38万股转让给固生公司,固生公司持有科创公司股份共计615.38万股。2005年2月至 2006年11月,陈木高以每股1.2元的价格收购了其他自然人股东315.71万股。科创公司股东变更为:固生公司615.38万股,占56.42%; 陈木高315.71万股,占 28.94%;蒋洋67.60万股,占6.20%;红日公司27.60万股,占2.53%;其他自然人股东11人,共64.46万股,占5.91%。目前,科创公司拟开发的石桥铺项目仅修了一条从城区公路通往项目所在地的200米左右的水泥路,整个项目因拆迁和规划等问题尚未破土动工。
The Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, as the court of second instance, held that: The resolution regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” adopted on December 16, 2003 at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company and the Share Subscription Agreement discussed at the meeting included two matters: the 8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao's subscription for the 8 million yuan capital increase to become a new shareholder of Kechuang Company. Article 38.1(8) of the Company Law 1999 provided that: “The shareholders' meeting shall exercise the power of resolving the increase or decrease of the registered capital of the company,” and Article 39.2 provided that: “A resolution of the shareholders' meeting regarding the increase or decrease of the registered capital, split, merger, dissolution, or modification of corporate form must be adopted upon affirmative votes of shareholders representing two thirds or more of the voting rights.” The resolution regarding the 8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company was adopted upon affirmative votes of shareholders representing 75.49% of the voting rights of Kechuang Company and should be legal and valid, for it was. Article 33 of the Company Law 1999 provided that: “Where a company increases its capital, its shareholders may exercise their preemptive right to subscribe for the increase.” The same provision existed in the bylaws of Kechuang Company. Therefore, Jiang Yang and Hongri Company as the original shareholders of Kechuang Company should have the preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase. At the shareholders' meeting, Jiang Yang and Hongri Company voted against the proposal regarding Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a new shareholder of the company and noted that “the original shareholders' right of investment (contribution) in the Company Law should be considered,” which was the expression of their intentions that they objected to Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase to become a shareholder, that the company should consider their preemptive right of subscription as the original shareholders, and that they clearly would not waive their preemptive right of subscription. On December 22 and 26, 2003, Jiang Yang and Hongri Company filed with Kechuang Company written Requests for Subscribing for the Capital Increase of Kechuang Company respectively and submitted to the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Mianyang High-Tech Zone the written Requests for Withholding Modification Registration for the Capital increase and the New Shareholder of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. in order to further claim their preemptive right of subscription. All of the facts above indicated that Hongri Company and Jiang Yang had never waived their preemptive right of subscription. Nevertheless, without asking Jiang Yang and Hongri Company in a proper manner whether they would waive their preemptive right of subscription and without providing Jiang Yang and Hongri Company with a reasonable period to exercise their preemptive right of subscription, Kechuang Company entered into the Share Subscription Agreement with Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003, and undergone the industrial and commercial registration modification procedures on December 25, 2003, changing its legal representative to Chen Mugao and its registered capital to 10,907,500 yuan, including the increase of 6,153,800 yuan which was registered to Chen Mugao. The aforementioned acts violated the statutory preemptive right of Jiang Yang and Hongri Company to subscribe for the capital increase of Kechuang Company. Article 58.1(5) of the General Civil Law provided that: “Any civil act in violation of law or public interest shall be void.” Therefore, the part of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting regarding Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a shareholder of Kechuang Company should be void, and the Share Subscription Agreement entered into between Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao should also be void. Although the alleged resolution of the shareholders' meeting was adopted upon affirmative votes of shareholders representing more than two thirds of the voting rights, the preemptive right of the original shareholders to subscribe for the capital increase was their individual statutory right which should not be denied by means of a majority vote at the shareholders' meeting. Therefore, the part of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting regarding Chen Mugao as a new shareholder and the Share Subscription Agreement as alleged by Jiang Yang and Hongri Company should be void, and their grounds in appeal that they enjoyed the preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of 8 million yuan of Kechuang Company were well-founded in law and should be supported by the court of second instance. 四川省高级人民法院二审认为:科创公司于2003年12月16日召开的股东会议所通过的关于“吸纳陈木高先生为新股东”的决议,结合股东会讨论的《入股协议书》,其内容包括了科创公司增资800万元和由陈木高通过认缴该800万元新增出资成为科创公司新股东两个方面的内容。根据99公司法三十八条第一款第(八)项关于“股东会行使对公司增加或者减少注册资本作出决议的职权”,第三十九条第二款关于“股东会对公司增加或者减少注册资本、分立、合并、解散或者变更公司形式作出决议,必须经代表三分之二以上表决权的股东通过”的规定,科创公司增资800万元的决议获代表科创公司75.49%表决权的股东通过,应属合法有效。根据99公司法三十三条关于“公司新增资本时,股东可以优先认缴出资”的规定以及科创公司章程中的相同约定,科创公司原股东蒋洋和红日公司享有该次增资的优先认缴出资权。在股东会议上,蒋洋和红日公司对由陈木高认缴800万元增资股份并成为新股东的议题投反对票并签注“要考虑原股东享有公司法规定的投资(出资)权利”的意见,是其反对陈木高认缴新增资本成为股东,并认为公司应当考虑其作为原股东所享有的优先认缴出资权,明确其不放弃优先认缴出资权的意思表示。紧接着在同月 22日和26日,蒋洋和红日公司又分别向科创公司递交了《关于要求作为科创公司增资扩股增资认缴人的报告》,向绵阳市高新区工商局递交了《请就绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司新增资本、增加新股东作不予变更登记的报告》,进一步明确主张优先认缴出资权。上述事实均表明红日公司和蒋洋从未放弃优先认缴出资权。但是,科创公司在没有以恰当的方式征询蒋洋和红日公司的意见以明确其是否放弃优先认缴出资权,也没有给予蒋洋和红日公司合理期限以行使优先认缴出资权的情况下,即于同月18日与陈木高签订《入股协议书》,并于同月25日变更工商登记,将法定代表人变更成陈木高,将公司注册资本变更为 1090.75万元,其中新增资本615.38万元登记于陈木高名下。该系列行为侵犯了法律规定的蒋洋和红日公司在科创公司所享有的公司新增资本时的优先认缴出资权,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十八条第一款第(五)项关于“违反法律或者社会公共利益的民事行为无效”的规定,股东会决议中关于由陈木高认缴新增资本800万元并由此成为科创公司股东的内容无效,科创公司和陈木高签订的《入股协议书》也相应无效。虽然本案所涉股东会决议经代表三分之二以上表决权的股东投票通过,但公司原股东优先认缴新增出资的权利是原股东个体的法定权利,不能以股东会多数决的方式予以剥夺。故蒋洋和红日公司所提股东会议决议中关于吸收陈木高为股东的内容、《入股协议书》无效,其享有优先认缴科创公司800万元新增资本的上诉理由依法成立,二审法院予以支持。
According to Article 61 of the General Civil Law, after a civil act was confirmed to be void or voidable, any property acquired by one party in connection with the act should be restituted. In this case, the equity acquired by Chen Mugao pursuant to the void part of the resolution and the Share Subscription Agreement should be restituted. Although Chen Mugao transferred the shares under his name to Gusheng Company later by means of gift and assignment, as Chen Mugao was the legal representative of Gusheng Company, Gusheng Company knew or should have known that Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase violated other shareholders' preemptive right of subscription and did not acquire the shares on a bona fide basis. Therefore, such transfer by means of gift and assignment between Chen Mugao and Gusheng Company was void. Gusheng Company should return its 6,153,800 shares of Kechuang Company to Kechuang Company, and Hongri Company and Jiang Yang should have the preemptive right to subscribe for these shares; Kechuang Company should refund the 8 million yuan share payment and interest thereon to Chen Mugao. 按照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第六十一条的规定,民事行为被确认为无效或者被撤销后,当事人因该行为取得的财产,应当返还给受损失的一方,因此陈木高依据该部分无效决议和《入股协议书》所取得的股权应当返还。虽然后来陈木高将其名下的股份赠与和转让给了固生公司,但陈木高系固生公司的法定代表人,固生公司知道或者应当知道陈木高认缴出资侵犯了他人的优先认缴出资权,故该司并非善意取得,其间的赠与和转让行为也无效。固生公司应当将其所持有的科创公司615.38万股股份返还给科创公司,由红日公司和蒋洋优先认购;科创公司应当将800万元认股款及其资金占用利息返还给陈木高。
Regarding the time limitation for the shareholders of a limited liability company to institute an action to request a people's court to protect their preemptive right to subscribe for capital increase, as none of the existing laws contained any specific provisions, the general two-year limitation set out in the General Civil Law should apply. Jiang Yang and Hongri Company filed written requests for the preemptive subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan on December 22, 2003, and instituted an action on December 19, 2005, in compliance with the statutory two-year limitation, and their claim for the preemptive subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan were well-founded and should be supported by the court of second instance. The claim of Jiang Yang and Hongri Company that Kechuang Company should compensate them for losses was not proved by any evidence and should not be supported by the court of second instance. The original judgment was unclear in the fact finding and wrong in the application of law and should be corrected. In accordance with Article 153.1(3) of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 33, 38.1(8) and 39.3 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (1999 Revision), and Articles 58.1(4), 58.1(5), 61 and 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province rendered the following judgment upon discussion and decision of its judicial committee: (1) The civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) of the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province should be revoked. (2) The part of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. adopted on December 16, 2003 regarding Chen Mugao as a prospective shareholder should be void. (3) The Share Subscription Agreement entered into between Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. and Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003, should be void. (4) Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. should enjoy the preemptive right to subscribe for the 6,153,800 new shares decided at the shareholders' meeting of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. on December 16, 2003 with payment of 8 million yuan. (5) Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. should pay 8 million yuan as share payment to Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. within 15 days after the effective date of this judgment. (6) Within 15 days after fulfillment of item (5) of this judgment by Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd., Fujian Province Gusheng Investment Co., Ltd. should return its 6,153,800 shares to Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd., and Mianyang High-Tech Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. should have such shares registered to Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. according to the subscription and the payment by Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. (7) Within 3 days after fulfillment of item (6) of this judgment by Fujian Gusheng Investment Co., Ltd., Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. should return the 8 million yuan and interest thereon (calculated for the period from December 23, 2003, to the date of full repayment at the lending rate for current capital over the same period as published by the People's Bank of China) to Chen Mugao. (8) Other claims of Jiang Yang and Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. should be dismissed. The case acceptance fees for the original trial, 75,015 yuan, and for the trial upon appeal, 75,015 yuan, and the preservation fees, 5,000 yuan, should be solely assumed by Mianyang High-Tech Zone Industry Co., Ltd. 关于有限责任公司股东请求人民法院保护其认缴新增资本优先权的诉讼时效问题,现行法律无特别规定,应当适用《中华人民共和国民法通则》规定的两年普通诉讼时效。蒋洋和红日公司在2003年12月 22日书面要求优先认缴新增资本800万元,至2005年12月19日提起诉讼,符合该法关于两年诉讼时效的规定,其所提应当优先认缴800万元新增资本的请求依法成立,二审法院予以支持。蒋洋和红日公司所提应由科创公司承担其相应损失的请求因无相应证据证明,二审法院不予支持。原判认定事实不清,适用法律有误,应当予以纠正。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(三)项、《中华人民共和国公司法》(1999年修订)第三十三条、第三十八条第一款第(八)项、第三十九条第二款、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十八条第一款第(四)项、第(五)项、第六十一条、第一百三十五条的规定,经二审法院审判委员会讨论决定,判决如下:一、撤销四川省绵阳市中级人民法院(2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决;二、绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司于2003年12月16日作出的股东会决议中关于吸收陈木高为股东的内容无效;三、绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司于2003年12月18日与陈木高签订的《入股协议书》无效;四、蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司享有以800万元购买绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司2003年12月16日股东会决定新增的615.38万股股份的优先权;五、蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司于本判决生效之日起15日内将800万元购股款支付给绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司;六、在蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司履行上述第五项判决后15日内,由福建省固生投资有限公司向绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司返还其所持有的该司615.38万股股权,并同时由绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司根据蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司的认购意愿和支付款项情况将该部分股权登记于蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司名下;七、在福建省固生投资有限公司履行上述第六项判决后3日内,由绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司向陈木高返还800万元及利息(从2003年12月23日至付清之日止按中国人民银行流动资金同期贷款利率计算);八、驳回蒋洋和绵阳市红日实业有限公司的其他诉讼请求。第一审案件受理费75 015元,第二审案件受理费75 015元,保全费5000元,均由绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司负担。
Kechuang Company, Gusheng Company, and Chen Mugao filed a retrial petition with this Court against the civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, asserting that: Firstly, the facts found in the judgment of the court of second instance were not supported by sufficient evidence. Both the resolution of the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugaor” on December 16, 2003, and the Share Subscription Agreement entered into between Chen Mugao and Kechuang Company on December 18, 2003, were legal and valid. (1) It was seriously contrary to the fact for the court of second instance to divide the resolution regarding Chen Mugao as a new shareholder adopted at the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003 into two parts: “8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company” and “Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a new shareholder of Kechuang Company. Such two parts were inseparable, because the capital increase of 8 million yuan was conditioned upon absorbing Chen Mugao as a new shareholder. (2) The notes made by Hongri Company to its negative vote at the shareholders' meeting could not serve as its expression of intention not to waive its preemptive right of subscription. The notes made by Hongri Company quoted the provision of Article 39.2 of the Company Law 1999, i.e. the voting procedures for resolutions of a shareholders' meeting regarding capital increase or decrease of the company, which was irrelevant to a shareholder's preemptive right of subscription as mentioned in Article 33. The request filed by Hongri Company on December 22, 2003, contained no signature of Jiang Yang, and therefore Jiang Yang should not be deemed to have claimed his preemptive right of subscription. (3) The preemptive right of subscription was a right to cause unilateral changes in legal relations, and such a right should be exercised within a reasonable period. Kechuang Company needed capital contribution from Chen Mugao because it was urgent for it to pay the land transfer price for the Shiqiaopu Project, and the period for Jiang Yang and Hongri Company to exercise their preemptive right of subscription should not be later than the deadline for Kechuang Company to pay the land transfer price, i.e. December 31, 2003. (4) Gusheng Company and Chen Mugao neither acquired the equity of Kechuang Company in bad faith nor colluded maliciously in entering into the Share Subscription Agreement. Secondly, the judgment of the court of second instance erred in the application of law. It was clearly erroneous application of law for the court of second instance to void the resolution of the shareholders' meeting and the Share Subscription Agreement in accordance with Articles 58.1(4) and 58.1(5) of the General Civil Law in the absence of evidence that Chen Mugao colluded maliciously with Kechuang Company and the Share Subscription Agreement violated any law or public interest. It was also contrary to the facts for the court of second instance to invoke Article 61 of the General Civil Law and Article 58 of the Contract Law. Even if the claim of Jiang Yang and Hongri Company for exercising their preemptive right of subscription could be supported, in accordance with Article 2 of the Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law (I) and Article 35 of the Company Law, they may only subscribe according to their proportions of contribution to the paid-up capital, rather than to all of the 8 million yuan capital increase. It was also erroneous for the court of second instance to apply the general two-year limitation set out in the General Civil Law. A shareholder's preemptive right of subscription, as a right to cause unilateral changes to legal relations, should be exercised in a prescribed period not more than a year. Thirdly, Chen Mugao invested a great deal of funds and intellect in Kechuang Company after becoming its shareholder, and as a result, both the business management of the company and the Shiqiaopu Project made huge progress, and the equity value of Kechuang Company rose significantly over the original purchase price. It was against the principle of fairness for the court of second instance to support Hongri Company and Jiang Yang in purchasing the equity at the price in 2003 without reassessment of the equity value. In summary, they requested this Court to revoke the civil judgment (No. 515 [2006], Civil, Final, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, uphold the civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) of the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, suspend the execution of the civil judgment (No. 515 [2006], Civil, Final, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, and rule that the respondents, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang, should assume all litigation costs for both trials of this case. 科创公司、固生公司、陈木高不服四川省高级人民法院上述二审民事判决,向本院申请再审称:一、二审判决认定的事实缺乏证据支持,2003年12月16日科创公司作出的“关于吸纳陈木高为新股东”的股东会决议、2003年12月18日陈木高与科创公司签订的《入股协议书》均合法有效。1.二审法院将科创公司2003年12月16日股东会关于吸纳陈木高为新股东的决议内容拆分为“科创公司增资800万元”和“由陈木高通过认缴800万元新增出资成为科创公司新股东”两部分,与事实严重不符,这两项内容是不可分的,增资800万元是以吸纳陈木高为新股东为前提的。2.红日公司在股东会反对票上的签注不能作为其不放弃优先认缴出资权的意思表示,红日公司的签注援引了99公司法三十九条第二款的规定,即股东会对公司增资或减资等决议的表决程序,与第三十三条股东优先认缴权无关。且红日公司2003年12月22日提交的报告上没有蒋洋的签名,不能认为蒋洋主张了优先认缴权。3.优先认缴权是形成权,其行使应有合理期限。科创公司是在急于支付石桥铺项目土地出让金的现实情况下吸收陈木高出资的,蒋洋和红日公司行使优先认缴权的期限应不超过科创公司支付土地出让金的最后期限,即 2003年12月31日。4.固生公司和陈木高取得科创公司的股权没有恶意,签订《入股协议书》时不存在恶意串通的情形。二、二审判决适用法律错误。二审判决依据《民法通则》第五十八条第一款第(四)项、第(五)项,在没有证据证明陈木高与科创公司恶意串通、《入股协议书》违反法律或社会公共利益的情况下引用上述条文判决股东会决议及《入股协议书》无效,显属适用法律错误,据此另引用的《民法通则
我不休息我还能学
》第六十一条及《合同法》第五十八条也与事实不符。即使蒋洋和红日公司关于行使优先认缴权的主张能够得到支持,按照《关于适用公司法若干问题的规定(一)》第二条和《公司法》第三十五条之规定,也只能按照其实缴的出资比例认缴出资,而不能全部认缴800万元新增出资。且二审法院适用《民法通则》规定的两年普通诉讼时效也存在错误,股东优先认缴权属形成权,应适用除斥期间的规定,不超过一年。三、陈木高入股科创公司后投入了大量的资金和智慧,促使公司的经营管理和石桥铺项目都取得了巨大进展,科创公司的股权价值大幅增值,早已超过当年的购买价格,二审判决在未对股权价值进行重新评估的基础上支持红日公司和蒋洋以2003年的价格购买该股权,有违公平原则。综上,请求撤销四川省高级人民法院作出的(2006)川民终字第 515号民事判决,维持四川省绵阳市中级人民法院作出的(2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决,中止对四川省高级人民法院作出的(2006)川民终字第515号民事判决的执行,由被申请人红日公司、蒋洋承担本案一、二审全部诉讼费用。
The respondents, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang, argued that: Firstly, in the judgment of the court of second instance, the fact finding was clear and based on decisive evidence. The resolution regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” was not adopted under the adverse circumstances that Kechuang Company was unable to pay the land transfer price and may forfeit the land. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang were completely able to subscribe for the share increase for the company to pay up the land transfer price, and the land transfer price was not paid up because Kechuang Company had several accounts to be settled with the High-Tech Zone Management Committee then. For interpretation purposes, the resolution regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” may be divided into two parts: “8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company” and “Chen Mugao's subscription to the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a new shareholder of Kechuang Company.” Hongri Company and Jiang Yang voted against and made notes to the resolution, indicating that they agreed with the “8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company” but disagreed with “Chen Mugao's subscription to the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a new shareholder of Kechuang Company.” Even if Hongri Company and Jiang Yang opposed to both parts, the legal effect of the “8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company” would not be affected, because the adoption of the resolution regarding the share capital increase by voting was in compliance with the Contract Law and did not infringe upon the original shareholders' preemptive right of subscription. Only the second part, “Chen Mugao's subscription to the capital increase of 8 million yuan to become a new shareholder of Kechuang Company,” infringed upon the original shareholders' preemptive right of subscription. The notes to the vote of Hongri Company clearly indicated that the capital increase should be conducted in accordance with Article 39.2 of the Company Law and the original shareholders' preemptive right of subscription should be considered in accordance with Article 33 of the Company Law, meaning that Hongri Company did not waive its preemptive right of subscription. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang did not know the proposed 8 million yuan capital increase of Kechuang Company until the shareholders' meeting was held. Therefore, their preemptive right of subscription should be exercised within a reasonable term starting from December 16, 2003, rather than on that day. Hongri Company expressed its intention of exercising its preemptive right of subscription on December 22, 2003, by filing with Kechuang Company a written Request for Subscribing for the Capital Increase of Kechuang Company, earlier than the effective date of the Share Subscription Agreement entered into between Chen Mugao and Kechuang Company. Despite the fact that the original shareholders of Kechuang Company were able to subscribe for the capital increase and had filed requests for exercising their preemptive right of subscription, Chen Mugao still entered into the Share Subscription Agreement with Kechuang Company, which clearly infringed upon the preemptive right of subscription of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang. In the Share Subscription Agreement, the parties agreed on the composition of the new term of board of directors of the company, Chen Mugao serving as the board chairman and general manager, the investment of the capital inc, rease of 8 million yuan, , the arrangement of financial personnel and the distribution of profits, among others, in violation of Articles 37, 38 and 46 of the Co, mpany Law 1999 and Article 24 of the bylaws of the company. Because they exercised ultra vires the statutory powers of the shareholders' meeting and the board of directors, such clauses should be determined as void. Gusheng Company was founded with contributions from Chen Mugao and his family, and Chen Mugao was the legal representative of Gusheng Company. It could be said that Gusheng Company was actually owned by him. Because Chen Mugao's acquisition of the shares of Kechuang Company was illegal, the following transfer of such shares by him was disposition without authority, and Gusheng Company, as a company actually owned by Chen Mugao, clearly acquired such shares from Chen Mugao in bad faith. Secondly, the judgment of the court of second instance was correct in the application of law. Article 58 (4) of the General Civil Law should be construed as that the actor acted in bad faith if the actor acted intentionally despite his realization that his act may infringe upon a third party's interests. Before convening the shareholders' meeting on December 16, 2003, Kechuang Company had prepared the drafts of the Share Subscription Agreement and the contractual operation agreement with Chen Mugao, and, when signing the Share Subscription Agreement, Chen Mugao knew that Hongri Company and Jiang Yang opposed to his becoming a new shareholder of Kechuang Company. Therefore, Chen Mugao and Kechuang Company colluded in bad faith in entering into the Share Subscription Agreement. If the preemptive right of subscription was regarded as a right to cause unilateral changes in legal relations, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang exercised their preemptive right of subscription on December 22, 2003, and the general two-year limitation of action should apply to the infringement upon such a right. Thirdly, in this case, since Chen Mugao became a shareholder of Kechuang Company, he had made little investment in the company, and the assets of the company had seen no growth; and the Shiqiaopu project of the company remained undeveloped. The acts of Chen Mugao had caused dissatisfaction among the local people and a range of social problems. In summary, the judgment of the court of second instance was clear in the fact finding and correct in the application of law. The grounds of the retrial petition were unfounded, and the retrial petition should be dismissed. 被申请人红日公司、蒋洋答辩称:一、二审判决认定事实清楚、证据确凿。“吸纳陈木高为新股东”这一决议并不是在公司面临无力交款,土地将被收回的严峻形势下作出的。红日公司和蒋洋当时完全有能力进行增资扩股交清土地出让金,未交清的原因是科创公司与高新区管委会之间还有多笔账务没有结算。“吸纳陈木高为新股东”这一决议可以拆分为“科创公司增资 800万元”和“由陈木高通过认缴800万元新增出资成为科创公司新股东”来理解。红日公司、蒋洋投反对票并签注的意思表明其同意“科创公司增资800万元”而反对“由陈木高认缴800万元新增出资成为科创公司新股东”。即使红日公司、蒋洋对这两项内容均表示反对;也不会影响“科创公司增资800万元”的法律效力,增资扩股的表决通过是符合《公司法》规定的,并没有侵犯原股东的优先认缴出资权,只是“由陈木高通过认缴800万元新增出资成为科创公司新股东”这一部分侵犯了原股东的优先认缴出资权。红日公司在表决票上的签注明确表明增资需按《公司法》第三十九条第二款的规定进行,并且应按第三十三条的规定考虑原股东的优先认缴出资权,已表明其没有放弃优先认缴出资权。红日公司和蒋洋在股东会召开当天才知道科创公司即将增资扩股800万元,因此其行使优先认股权的期限应为从2003年12月16日起算的一个合理期间,而不是当天必须行使权利。红日公司在2003年12月22日就向科创公司递交了《关于要求作为科创公司增资扩股增资认缴人的报告》,作出了行使优先认缴权的意思表示,且该时间早于陈木高与科创公司签订的《入股协议书》约定的生效时间。陈木高在科创公司原股东有能力认缴新增出资且主张了优先认缴权的前提下仍然与科创公司订立《入股协议书》,显然侵犯了红日公司和蒋洋的优先认缴权。《入股协议书》中关于公司新一届董事会的组成及陈木高任董事长、总经理的约定,关于800万元新增资本的投资问题、财务人员的安排问题、利润分配问题等,均违反了99公司法三十七条、第三十八条、第四十六条及科创公司章程第二十四条的规定,越权行使了属于股东会和董事会的法定职权,依法也应被认定为无效。固生公司是陈木高及其家人出资设立,陈木高是固生公司的法定代表人,因此该公司可以认定为陈木高自己的公司。陈木高取得的科创公司股份是不合法的,其转让行为属于无权处分,而固生公司作为陈木高个人的公司受让股权显然恶意。二、二审判决适用法律正确。对《民法通则》第五十八条第(四)项应当理解为,只要行为人意识到了该行为有可能侵犯到第三人利益而故意为之,就构成恶意。科创公司在召开 2003年12月16日股东会以前,已经与陈木高达成《入股协议书》和承包经营协议草案,且陈木高在签订《入股协议书》时也清楚红日公司和蒋洋反对其成为科创公司的新股东,因此陈木高与科创公司签订的《入股协议书》应属恶意串通之行为。如果认为优先认缴权是形成权,红日公司和蒋洋在 2003年12月22日已经行使了优先认缴权,在这一权利受到侵犯时就应当适用两年普通诉讼时效的规定。三、本案中陈木高进入科创公司以来,对公司基本没有投入,公司资产基本无增长,公司的石桥铺项目至今基本未进行开发,陈木高的行为引起了当地百姓的不满和一系列社会问题。总之,二审判决事实认定清楚,法律适用正确,再审申请人的申请理由不能成立,应依法予以驳回。
During the retrial, the respondents, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang, submitted a notarization certificate on urging debt repayment, the enforcement documents from the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, a notarization certificate on deposit of undeliverable property, a notarization certificate on an ad hoc shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company in 2008, and other evidentiary materials, in order to prove the execution of the judgment of the court of second instance, the current equity structure of Kechuang Company and other basic facts. They also submitted materials regarding the business performance of Kechuang Company from 2004 to 2008, materials regarding the dismantlement and relocation compensation to villagers involved in the Shiqiaopu Project, a letter jointly signed by the villagers, and other evidentiary materials, to prove that Chen Mugao had invested nothing in Kechuang Company after he entered the company and Kechuang Company had made additional investment in the Shiqiaopu Project only after Hongri Company and Jiang Yang acquired the new shares of Kechuang Company. 再审中,被申请人红日公司和蒋洋提交了催告公证书、绵阳中院强制执行文书、提存公证书、2008年科创公司临时股东大会的公证书等证据材料,用以证明本案二审判决后的履行情况及科创公司现在的股权结构等基本情况;另提交了科创公司 2004年至2008年经营状况材料、石桥铺项目所涉及的村民拆迁补偿材料和村民的联名信等证据材料,用以证明陈木高进入科创公司后对公司没有进行投入,红日公司和蒋洋取得科创公司新增股份后科创公司对石桥铺项目有了新的投入。
In the cross-questioning stage, the retrial petitioners, Kechuang Company, Gusheng Company and Chen Mugao, argued that, among the aforementioned evidentiary materials, the notarization certificate on urging debt repayment, the enforcement documents from the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, the notarization certificate on deposit of undeliverable property, and the notarization certificate on an ad hoc shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company in 2008 were all formed after the judgment of the court of second instance and irrelevant to the disputes in this case; and the industrial and commercial registration materials were not new evidence. They also raised objections to the materials regarding the dismantlement and relocation compensation to villagers involved in the Shiqiaopu Project and the letter jointly signed by the villagers in terms of authenticity, relevancy and content. 申请再审人科创公司、固生公司和陈木高质证认为,上述证据材料中催告公证书、绵阳中院强制执行文书、提存公证书、 2008年科创公司临时股东大会的公证书都发生在二审判决后,和本案的争议无关。工商登记资料不属于新证据。对石桥铺项目所涉及的村民拆迁补偿材料和村民的联名信真实性、与本案的关联性及证明的内容均有异议。
Through the retrial, this Court confirmed the facts found by the original trial court. 本院经再审审理,对原审法院查明的事实予以确认。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING曾经瘦过你也是厉害 
This Court holds that: According to the facts in this case and the claims and arguments of both sides, the retrial of this case focuses on the following two disputes: First, whether the resolution made at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, and the Share Subscription Agreement entered into by Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003, were valid. Second, whether Hongri Company and Jiang Yang could exercise their preemptive right to subscribe for the 6,153,800 new shares of Kechuang Company offered in 2003. 本院认为:根据本案的事实和双方当事人的诉辩主张,本案再审程序中有以下两个争议焦点:一、2003年12月16日科创公司作出的股东会决议和2003年12月18日科创公司与陈木高签订的《入股协议书》是否有效;二、红日公司和蒋洋是否能够行使对科创公司2003年新增的615.38万股股份的优先认缴权。
Regarding the first dispute, when the resolution was made at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, the current Company Law was not in force, and according to Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (I), if the laws and judicial interpretations then in force contain no relevant provisions, the provisions of the current Company Law may apply, mutatis mutandis. Article 33 of the Company Law 1999 provided that: “When a company increases its capital, its shareholders may exercise their preemptive right of subscription.” According to Article 35 of the current Company Law, when a company increases its capital, the preemptive right of subscription of a shareholder shall be limited to its proportion in the paid-up contributions. Despite the clear opposition from Hongri Company and Jiang Yang, the resolution made at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, did not provide Hongri Company and Jiang Yang with the option of exercising their preemptive right of subscription, and the part of the resolution regarding the subscription for all the 6,153,800 new shares of Kechuang Company by Chen Mugao, a third party, with 8 million yuan was adopted directly by a majority vote, infringing upon the preemptive right of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to subscribe for the capital increase according to their respective proportions of contribution and violating the above legal provisions. Article 22.1 of the current Company Law provides that: “A resolution of the shareholders' meeting or the board of directors shall be void if its content violates any law or administrative regulation.” According to this provision, in the resolution adopted at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, regarding the subscription for all the 6,153,800 new shares of Kechuang Company by Chen Mugao with 8 million yuan, the part concerning 14.22% and 5.81% of the new shares should be void for violating the preemptive right of subscription of Jiang Yang and Hongri Company respectively, while the part concerning 79.97% of the new shares should be legally binding because other shareholders waived their preemptive right of subscription by affirmative or abstention votes. It was improper for the civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) of the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province to determine that the whole resolution was valid, which should be corrected. The proposal regarding “a prospective shareholder, Chen Mugao” at the shareholders' meeting actually included two parts: the capital increase of 8 million yuan and the subscription for the capital increase by Chen Mugao. The part of the resolution concerning Chen Mugao's subscription for the capital increase would not affect the validity of the entire resolution on capital increase. The argument of Kechuang Company that the two parts were inseparable is lack of sufficient grounds and should not be supported by this Court. 关于第一个争议焦点。2003年12月 16日科创公司作出股东会决议时,现行公司法尚未实施,根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(一)》第二条的规定,当时的法律和司法解释没有明确规定的,可参照适用现行公司法的规定。99公司法三十三条规定:“公司新增资本时,股东可以优先认缴出资。”根据现行公司法三十五条的规定,公司新增资本时,股东的优先认缴权应限于其实缴的出资比例。2003年12月16日科创公司作出的股东会决议,在其股东红日公司、蒋洋明确表示反对的情况下,未给予红日公司和蒋洋优先认缴出资的选择权,迳行以股权多数决的方式通过了由股东以外的第三人陈木高出资800万元认购科创公司全部新增股份615.38万股的决议内容,侵犯了红日公司和蒋洋按照各自的出资比例优先认缴新增资本的权利,违反了上述法律规定。现行公司法二十二条第一款规定:“公司股东会或者股东大会、董事会的决议内容违反法律、行政法规的无效。”根据上述规定,科创公司2003年 12月16日股东会议通过的由陈木高出资 800万元认购科创公司新增615.38万股股份的决议内容中,涉及新增股份中14.22%和5.81%的部分因分别侵犯了蒋洋和红日公司的优先认缴权而归于无效,涉及新增股份中79.97%的部分因其他股东以同意或弃权的方式放弃行使优先认缴权而发生法律效力。四川省绵阳市中级人民法院 (2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决认定决议全部有效不妥,应予纠正。该股东会将吸纳陈木高为新股东列为一项议题,但该议题中实际包含增资800万元和由陈木高认缴新增出资两方面的内容,其中由陈木高认缴新增出资的决议内容部分无效不影响增资决议的效力,科创公司认为上述两方面的内容不可分割缺乏依据,本院不予支持。
The Share Subscription Agreement entered into by Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao on December 18, 2003, is a contract between Kechuang Company and a third party, and the validity of this agreement should be determined in accordance with the general principles of the Contract Law and the provisions of relevant laws. The resolution adopted at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, was partially void, leading to the flawed intention of Kechuang Company in entering into the agreement, but Chen Mugao, as the other party to the agreement, had no obligation to examine the formation of such an intention of Kechuang Company. Therefore, Kechuang Company should be bound by the agreement concluded externally as a result of its expression of intention. The Share Subscription Agreement was a result of consistent intentions of Kechuang Company and Chen Mugao, without violating any prohibitive legal provisions of the state, and Chen Mugao paid the consideration under the agreement. There is no evidence that the two parties colluded maliciously to cause damage to others' interests. Therefore, this agreement should be valid, because it does not fall under any of the circumstances for voiding a contract as set out in Article 52 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. The Share Subscription Agreement contained clauses on the composition of the new term of the board of directors, the board chairman, the general manager and other internal affairs of Kechuang Company, but such clauses would not preclude any decision making of Kechuang Company under its voting procedures in accordance with relevant laws and its bylaws and would not cause the contract to be void. It was erroneous application of law for the court of second instance to determine that the Share Subscription Agreement was void based on Article 58.1(5) of the General Civil Law, which should be corrected by this Court. 2003年12月18日科创公司与陈木高签订的《入股协议书》系科创公司与该公司以外的第三人签订的合同,应适用合同法的一般原则及相关法律规定认定其效力。虽然科创公司2003年12月16日作出的股东会决议部分无效,导致科创公司达成上述协议的意思存在瑕疵,但作为合同相对方的陈木高并无审查科创公司意思形成过程的义务,科创公司对外达成协议应受其表示行为的制约。上述《入股协议书》是科创公司与陈木高作出的一致意思表示,不违反国家禁止性法律规范,且陈木高按照协议约定支付了相应对价,没有证据证明双方恶意串通损害他人利益,因此该协议不存在《中华人民共和国合同法》第五十二条所规定的合同无效的情形,应属有效。《入股协议书》对科创公司新一届董事会的组成及董事长、总经理人选等公司内部事务作出了约定,但上述约定并未排除科创公司内部按照法律和章程规定的表决程序作出决定,不导致合同无效。二审法院根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十八条第一款第(五)项的规定认定该《入股协议书》无效属适用法律错误,本院予以纠正。
Regarding the second dispute, the resolution adopted at the shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company on December 16, 2003, was partially void for infringement upon the preemptive right of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to subscribe for the capital increase according to their respective proportions of contribution, but whether Hongri Company and Jiang Yang could exercise their preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase should depend on whether they have claimed their rights in a proper manner. A shareholder's preemptive right to subscribe for the company's capital increase is a right to cause unilateral changes in legal relations. None of the existing laws specifically provides for the term of exercise of such a right, but for the sake of maintaining transaction safety and a stable economic order, such a right should be exercised in a reasonable period, and, as the exercise of such a right is a typical commercial act, the reasonable period should be determined in a stricter way than for ordinary civil acts. In this case, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang knew the infringement upon their preemptive right of subscription when the shareholders' meeting was held on December 16, 2003, and expressed their intention to exercise their preemptive right of subscription, but failed to claim their rights proactively by litigation or otherwise. Later, when a resolution was adopted at a shareholders' meeting of Kechuang Company regarding the transfer of part of Chen Mugao's equity to Gusheng Company as a gift, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang, which attended the meeting, did not raise any objections. Hongri Company and Jiang Yang instituted an action two years after the equity change, when the equity value in dispute has changed greatly. Allowing them to exercise their preemptive right of subscription now would destroy the already stabilized legal relations and very likely result in significant unfairness. Therefore, it was not improper for the civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) of the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province to determine that the reasonable period for Hongri Company and Jiang Yang to exercise their preemptive right of subscription had passed. Therefore, this Court should not support the claims of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang for exercising their preemptive right to subscribe for the capital increase of Kechuang Company. 关于第二个争议焦点问题,虽然科创公司2003年12月16日股东会决议因侵犯了红日公司和蒋洋按照各自的出资比例优先认缴新增资本的权利而部分无效,但红日公司和蒋洋是否能够行使上述新增资本的优先认缴权还需要考虑其是否恰当地主张了权利。股东优先认缴公司新增资本的权利属形成权,虽然现行法律没有明确规定该项权利的行使期限,但为维护交易安全和稳定经济秩序,该权利应当在一定合理期间内行使,并且由于这一权利的行使属于典型的商事行为,对于合理期间的认定应当比通常的民事行为更加严格。本案红日公司和蒋洋在科创公司2003年12月16日召开股东会时已经知道其优先认缴权受到侵害,且作出了要求行使优先认缴权的意思表示,但并未及时采取诉讼等方式积极主张权利。在此后科创公司召开股东会、决议通过陈木高将部分股权赠与固生公司提案时,红日公司和蒋洋参加了会议,且未表示反对。红日公司和蒋洋在股权变动近两年后又提起诉讼,争议的股权价值已经发生了较大变化,此时允许其行使优先认缴出资的权利将导致已趋稳定的法律关系遭到破坏,并极易产生显失公平的后果,故四川省绵阳市中级人民法院 (2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决认定红日公司和蒋洋主张优先认缴权的合理期间已过并无不妥。故本院对红日公司和蒋洋行使对科创公司新增资本优先认缴权的请求不予支持。
In the original trial, Hongri Company and Jiang Yang claimed that Kechuang Company should compensate them for losses, but failed to specify the amount of losses and submit any evidence on such losses. Therefore, this Court would not consider such a claim. During the retrial, Hongri Company claimed that it had invested in Kechuang Company based on the acquired new shares, but this claim is not covered by the trial of this case, and Hongri Company may institute another action for this claim. 红日公司和蒋洋在一审诉讼请求中要求科创公司承担其相应损失,但未明确请求赔偿的损失数额,也未提交证据予以证明,本院对此不予审理。本案再审期间,红日公司一方主张基于新增股权对科创公司进行了投入,该主张不属于本案审理范围,其对此可以另行提起诉讼。
JUDGMENT 
In summary, part of the claims of Hongri Company and Jiang Yang are well-founded. However, the civil judgment (No. 515 [2006], Civil, Final, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, which determines that Hongri Company and Jiang Yang may exercise their preemptive right to subscribe for the 6,153,800 new shares of Kechuang Company in 2003, should be revoked for lack of sufficient basis and improper application of law. In accordance with Articles 186 and 153.1(2) of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court renders the following judgment: 综上,红日公司、蒋洋的诉讼请求部分成立,但四川省高级人民法院(2006)川民终字第515号民事判决认定红日公司和蒋洋可以行使优先认缴科创公司2003年新增615.38万股股份的权利,事实根据不足,适用法律不当,应予撤销。本院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百八十六条、第一百五十三条第一款第(二)项的规定,判决如下:
1. The civil judgment (No. 515 [2006], Civil, Final, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province shall be revoked, and the civil judgment (No. 2 [2006], Civil, First, Mianyang) of the Intermediate People's Court of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province should be revoked. 一、撤销四川省高级人民法院(2006)川民终字第515号民事判决,撤销四川省绵阳市中级人民法院(2006)绵民初字第2号民事判决;
2. In the resolution adopted at the shareholders' meeting of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. on December 16, 2003, regarding Chen Mugao's subscription for the 6,153,800 new shares of Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. with 8 million yuan, the part concerning 20.03% of the new shares shall be void, while the part concerning 79.97% of the new shares and other parts of the resolution shall be valid. 二、绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司 2003年12月16日作出的股东会决议中由陈木高出资800万元认购绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司新增615.38万股股份的决议内容中,涉及新增股份20.03%的部分无效,涉及新增股份79.97%的部分及决议的其他内容有效;
3. Other claims of Sichuan Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang shall be dismissed. 三、驳回四川省绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋的其他诉讼请求。
Of the case acceptance fee, 75,015 yuan, and the preservation fee, 5,000 yuan, totaling 81,015 yuan, for the trial by the court of first instance, Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. shall assume 37,507.5 yuan, and Sichuang Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang shall assume 42,507.5 yuan; of the case acceptance fee, 75,015 yuan, for the trial by the court of second instance, Mianyang High-Tech Zone Kechuang Industry Co., Ltd. shall assume 37,507.5 yuan, and Sichuang Mianyang Hongri Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiang Yang shall assume 37,507.5 yuan. 一审案件受理费75 015元、保全费 5000元,共80 015元,由绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司负担37 507.5元,四川省绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋负担 42 507.5元;二审案件受理费75 015元,由绵阳高新区科创实业有限公司负担 37 507.5元,四川省绵阳市红日实业有限公司、蒋洋负担37 507.5元。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Presiding judge: Zhang Yongjian 审 判 长 张勇健
Judge: Lei Jiping 审 判 员 雷继平
Acting judge: Liu Chongli 代理审判员 刘崇理
November 8, 2010 二0一0年十一月八日
Court clerk: Bai Xue

 书 记 员 白 雪
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese