Beijing New Auto Group v. China Huarong Asset Management Corporation
(Dispute over Contract on Stock Right Assignment)@#

@#

@#

Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#
No. 143 (2003)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff of the First Instance): Beijing New Auto Group Limited Company, domiciled at 6th Floor, Silicon Valley Computer Plaza, No.1 Xicaochang, Haidian District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Chen Chongyu, chairman of the board of the Group.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Chenyang, lawyer at Beijing King & Partners.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Xiaozhe, lawyer at Beijing King & Partners.@#
Appellant (Defendant of the First Instance): China Huarong Asset Management Corporation, domiciled at No. 10 Baiyun Road, Xicheng District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Yang Kaisheng, president of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Li Dan, employee of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Yang Huaijun, employee of the Company.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
With respect to the case on dispute with China Huarong Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CHAMC) over contract on stock right assignment, Beijing New Auto Group Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as New Auto Group) was dissatisfied with the civil judgment No. 1 (2003) of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Higher Court), and appealed to the present court. After accepting the case on August 14, 2003, the present court legally formed a collegial panel composed of Xu Ruibai as the chief judge and Wang Xiansen and Yang Yongmei as the acting judges, and then heard the case. Kong Lin as the court clerk made the records. The case has now been finalized.@#
It was verified by Beijing Higher Court through the hearing that:On June 28, 2002, CHAMC, Bit Technology Holding Limited Company (a party not involved in the present case, hereinafter referred to as Bit Technology) and New Auto Group concluded an agreement on assignment of the stock rights of Beijing BBEF Electronics Group Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as BBEF Group). The agreement mainly set forth that Bit Technology and New Auto Group should jointly form a purchase group to purchase 55.081% of CHAMC's stock rights in BBEF Group, with the final price of the stock right assignment to be no lower than 300 million Yuan, which should be paid by installments; within 3 days as of conclusion of the agreement, Bit Technology and New Auto Group should pay 100 million Yuan to CHAMC's account, and should pay off the remaining amount within 3 months as of conclusion of the agreement or within 7 days as of archival filing of the valuation report in the state's competent department. After Bit Technology and New Auto Group paid the 100 million Yuan pursuant to the agreement, CHAMC should assist in going through the stock right assignment registration procedures. The assignees completely knew the risks if other shareholders did not cooperate in going through the procedures of industrial and commercial registration of the stock right modification, and promised that they would not propose any demurral against the assignor in this regard; meanwhile, the assignees would not be affected in paying the stock right assignment price, and the assignor would not refund the stock right assignment price it had received. In addition, the agreement also set forth pledge of stock rights, liabilities for breach of the agreement, and applicable laws, etc. On June 28 of the same year, CHAMC proposed convening BBEF Group's first temporary session of the shareholders' meeting in 2002 to make a resolution regarding the relevant matters on CHAMC's assignment of its stock rights in BBEF Group once for all to the purchase group composed of Bit Technology and New Auto Group. Beijing Electronics Holding Limited Company (another shareholder of BBEF Group, hereinafter referred to as BEHC) did not sign or ratify the resolution. On September 27 of the same year, CHAMC concluded the “Agreement on Relevant Issues concerning the Stock Right Assignment (I)” with Xinjiang International Trust and Investment Limited Liability Company (a party not involved in the present case, hereinafter referred to as XITIC), New Auto Group and Bit Technology; and meanwhile concluded the “Agreement on Relevant Issues concerning the Stock Right Assignment (II)” with New Auto Group and Bit Technology. The two agreements mainly confirmed the following facts: New Auto Group and Bit Technology totally paid 100 million Yuan of stock right assignment price to CHAMC on July 22, August 6 and August 30. XITIC agreed to provide financing supports to New Auto Group and Bit Technology by way of trust, and should remit a total amount of 200 million Yuan of funds into the account appointed by 12 o'clock on September 28. The agreement also included the contents that, since another shareholder of BBEF Group had initiated arbitration procedures on the ground that CHAMC infringed upon its preemptive right, New Auto Group and Bit Technology agreed to make commitments on continuing performing the agreement on stock right assignment as concluded on June 28 of the same year. That is, if CHAMC lost the case in the arbitration, and resulted in inability to register the stock right assignment or to continue performing the agreement, neither New Auto Group nor Bit Technology should claim against CHAMC for the interest of the 200 million Yuan of funds, the financing costs, the foreseeable interests or compensation, etc., which CHAMC ought to bear or might bear due to conclusion of the foregoing agreements. Meanwhile, the agreements also set forth other obligations that New Auto Group and Bit Technology should perform to CHAMC under the foregoing conditions. On December 10 of the same year, XITIC, New Auto Group and Bit Technology sent a letter to CHAMC, requiring CHAMC to, along with XITIC, go through all procedures for drawing 200 million Yuan from the account of funds under joint custody within the relevant time limit; among the 100 million Yuan funds paid by New Auto Group to CHAMC, 5 million Yuan should be paid to XITIC. CHAMC did so pursuant to the letter. Later, CHAMC's Beijing Representative Office sent a letter to New Auto Group and Bit Technology claiming refundment of the remaining 95,500,000 Yuan (including 500,000 Yuan of prepaid amount for the stock right assignment), and served the notification on refundment along with notaries of Beijing No. 2 Notarial Office, but got no reply. New Auto Group denied the receipt of the foregoing notification on refundment. On April 16, 2003, CHAMC refunded the 95,500,000 Yuan of stock right assignment price, which was paid by New Auto Group and Bit Technology, to New Auto Group's account.@#
．．．．．．

北京新奥特公司诉华融公司股权转让合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
因双方当事人的过错，导致股权转让协议终止履行，一方当事人因准备协议履行及实际履行中产生的损失，应由双方共同承担民事责任。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事判决书@#
(2003)民二终字第143号@#
@#
上诉人(原审原告)：北京新奥特集团有限公司。住所地：北京市海淀区西草场一号硅谷电脑城六层。@#
法定代表人：陈崇玉，该集团董事长。@#
委托代理人：张晨阳，北京市高通律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：张晓哲，北京市高通律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人(原审被告)：中国华融资产管理公司。住所地：北京市西城区白云路10号。@#
法定代表人：杨凯生，该公司总裁。@#
委托代理人：李丹，该公司职员。@#
委托代理人：杨槐君，该公司职员。@#
@#
上诉人北京新奥特集团有限公司(以下简称新奥特集团)为与上诉人中国华融资产管理公司(以下简称华融公司)股权转让合同纠纷一案，不服北京市高级人民法院(2003)高民初字第1号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院于2003年8月14日受理后，依法组成由审判员徐瑞柏担任审判长，代理审判员王宪森、杨咏梅参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员孔玲担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
原审法院审理查明：2002年6月28日，华融公司与案外人比特科技控股股份有限公司(以下简称比特科技)、新奥特集团签订关于北京北广电子集团有限责任公司(以下简称北广集团)的股权转让协议，协议主要内容是：比特科技、新奥特集团共同组成收购团收购华融公司持有的北广集团55．081％的股权，股权转让的最终价格不低于3亿元。股权转让款的支付采取分期付款形式，协议签订起3日内，比特科技、新奥特集团按照华融公司提供的帐户支付1亿元，余款在协议签订起3个月内或评估报告经国家主管部门备案之日起七日内付清。比特科技、新奥特集团依约支付1亿元后，华融公司协助办理股权转让的过户手续。受让方完全知悉其他股东不配合办理股权变更工商登记手续的风险，并承诺不为此向出让方提出任何抗辩，不影响受让方支付股权转让价款，出让方已经收到的股权转让价款不予返还。此外，协议还约定了股权质押、违约责任、适用法律等内容。同年6月28日，经华融公司提议召开北广集团2002年度第一次临时股东会会议，拟就华融公司将其持有的北广集团全部股权一次性转让给比特科技和新奥特集团组成的收购团的相关事项作出决议。北广集团的另一股东北京电子控股有限公司(以下简称电子公司)未在相关决议上签章认可。同年9月27日，华融公司与案外人新疆国际信托投资有限责任公司(以下简称新疆国投)、新奥特集团、比特科技；华融公司与新奥特集团、比特科技分别签订《关于股权转让相关问题的协议书》(一)、(二)，两份协议书确认的事实主要是：新奥特集团、比特科技分别于同年7月22日、8月6日、8月30日共向华融公司交付股权转让款1亿元。新疆国投同意以信托方式对新奥特集团、比特科技给予融资支持，应于同年9月28日12时前将总值2亿元的资金汇出并进入约定的帐户。协议书确定的内容还有，因北广集团的另一股东已经以华融公司侵犯其优先购买权为由提起仲裁程序，新奥特集团、比特科技同意对继续履行同年6月28日的股权转让协议作出承诺。即如华融公司在仲裁案件中败诉，造成转让的股权不能过户，股权转让协议不能继续履行时，新奥特集团、比特科技不得追究华融公司因签订上述协议而应当或可能负有的对2亿元的资金所产生的利息、融资成本、可预期利益、赔偿等相关责任。同时还约定了在上述条件下，新奥特集团、比特科技应向华融公司履行的其他义务。同年12月10日，新疆国投、新奥特集团、比特科技共同致函华融公司，要求华融公司在相关期限前，与新疆国投办理自资金共管帐户取回相当于2亿元的一切手续；自新奥特集团向华融公司支付的1亿元资金中，向新疆国投支付500万元。华融公司已依此函执行。后华融公司北京办事处就余款9550万元(含股权转让项目的预付款50万元)，致函新奥特集团、比特科技要求退款，并曾与北京市第二公证处公证人员一同送达退款通知函，但未得到答复。新奥特集团否认收到上述各退款通知。华融公司于2003年4月16日将新奥特集团、比特科技支付的股权转让款9550万元退回新奥特集团的帐户。@#
比特科技向新奥特集团出具《委托书》，载明比特科技全权委托新奥特集团持有其合法取得的北广集团0．5％的股权，行使该股权对应的一切股东权利，并履行相应的义务。@#
2002年9月23日，电子公司作为申请人，以华融公司为被申请人，向北京仲裁委员会申请就电子公司作为北广集团股东有权享有优先购买权作出相关裁决。同年12月9日，北京仲裁委员会作出终局裁决，裁决的主要内容为：“2002年12月31日前，电子公司有权行使作为北广集团股东所享有的同等条件对华融公司拟转让的北广集团55％股权的优先购买权。2002年12月31日前一次性将转让的总价款3亿元付给华融公司。”依据上述裁决，同年12月20日，电子公司与华融公司签约；同年12月23日，电子公司向华融公司付款。@#
因华融公司与新奥特集团、比特科技签订的股权转让协议未能继续履行，新奥特集团于同年12月19日向原审法院提起诉讼，请求判令华融公司继续履行股权转让协议；赔偿因违反股权转让协议造成的损失19816077元；承担诉讼费和律师费用。@#
原审法院审理认为：华融公司与比特科技、新奥特集团于2002年6月28日签订的关于北广集团的股权转让协议为各方当事人的真实意思表示，签约各方本应依约履行。因北京仲裁委员会先于本案的生效裁决书裁决北广集团的另一股东电子公司对华融公司拟转让的股权享有同等条件的优先购买权，且电子公司与华融公司已就此在仲裁裁决指定的时间内，签订了协议并给付款项，故华融公司与比特科技、新奥特集团股权转让协议目的已不能实现，履行合同的基础条件已经不具备，该合同应终止履行。故对新奥特集团要求继续履行股权转让协议的诉讼请求不予支持。华融公司在电子公司明确表示不同意转让该股权，亦未明确表示放弃购买权，且未在相关股东决议上签字认可转让股权行为的情况下，明知股权转让协议可能发生履行不能的后果，仍与新奥特集团签订股权转让协议及多项附属协议，并于电子公司申请仲裁后，仍收取2亿元股权转让款，其对造成本案纠纷负有主要责任，应为此承担相应后果。新奥特集团在与华融公司签约过程中对其所购股权处于不确定状态及风险已经知悉，亦应对因股权转让协议不能履行而形成的部分损失承担相应责任。新奥特集团请求赔偿在股权转让协议正常履行情况下其可能取得的收益、收购项目组的相关费用等请求不予支持。新奥特集团为实现合同目的，促成双方协议的履行所支付的款项而形成的部分损失，应由华融公司予以赔偿。鉴于双方对此未有具体约定，且亦不能达成一致意见，根据双方履行合同情况及已经发生的合理损失，同时根据双方在本案中的责任，酌情确定华融公司赔偿新奥特集团的损失数额为300万元较为适当。该院根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第九十一条的规定，判决：一、华融公司与比特科技、新奥特集团签订的关于北京北广电子集团有限责任公司股权转让协议及相关协议终止履行。二、华融公司赔偿新奥特集团损失300万元(自判决生效之日起十日内给付，逾期给付，按中国人民银行相关规定给付滞纳金)。一审案件受理费1510010元，财产保全费1501020元，均由华融公司负担。@#
．．．．．．