>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Da'an Industrial Limited Liability Company v. Haitian Aquatic Product Company, Haikangda Bio-technological Development Company, Baotong Development Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Contract on Enterprise Acquisition)
大安实业有限责任公司诉海天水产公司、海康达生物技术开发公司、宝通建业有限公司企业收购合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Da’an Industrial Limited Liability Company v. Haitian Aquatic Product Company, Haikangda Bio-technological Development Company, Baotong Development Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Contract on Enterprise Acquisition)
(Dispute over Contract on Enterprise Acquisition)
大安实业有限责任公司诉海天水产公司、海康达生物技术开发公司、宝通建业有限公司企业收购合同纠纷案

Da'an Industrial Limited Liability Company v. Haitian Aquatic Product Company, Haikangda Bio-technological Development Company, Baotong Development Co., Ltd.
(Dispute over Contract on Enterprise Acquisition)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff (Defendant in the counterclaim): Shenyang Da'an Industrial Limited Liability Company, located at Songhua River Street, Huanggu District, Shenyang, Liaoning Province.@#
Legal Representative: Zhao Daihong, board chairman of the Company.@#
Attorney: Xie Bingguang, lawyer of Hualian Economic Affairs Law Firm.@#
Attorney: Liu Siming, assistant to board chairman of Shenyang Da'an Industrial Limited Liability Company.@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the counterclaim): Beijing Haitian Aquatic Product Company, located at Nangao Township, Chaoyang District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Guo Damin, manager of the Company.@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the counterclaim): Beijing Haikangda Bio-technological Development Company located at Qingta Village, Fengtai District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Zhao Mingjun, general manager of the Company.@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the counterclaim): Hong Kong Baotong Development Co., Ltd., located at Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.@#
Legal Representative: Chen Minchun, director of the Company.@#
Attorney: Chen Yuchun, employee of Beijing Aquatic Product Sales Company.@#
Attorney of the Three Defendants: Wei Daling, lawyer of Beijing Shangtai Law Firm.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
With regard to the dispute with Beijing Haitian Aquatic Product Company (defendant, hereinafter referred to as Haitian), Beijing Haikangda Bio-technological Development Company (defendant, hereinafter referred to as Haikangda) and Hong Kong Baotong Development Co., Ltd. (defendant, hereinafter referred to as Baotong) over a contract on enterprise acquisition, Shenyang Da'an Industrial Limited Liability Company (plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Da'an) brought a lawsuit in the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing (hereinafter referred to as Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court).@#
Da'an alleged: Da'an concluded with the three defendants an “Agreement on Enterprise Acquisition” to acquire Beijing Meitiankang Biological Health Care Product Co., Ltd. (a Chinese-foreign equity joint venture established by the three defendants, hereinafter referred to as Meitiankang Company). Therefore, Da'an paid 5,816,000 yuan (the currency mentioned in this text shall be Renminbi unless otherwise indicated). Da'an knew at the time of trial production that the production and office premises Meitiankang Company used were illegal buildings. It was later found out by Da'an after investigation that the bases and the overall structures of the buildings contained serious concealed danger; in addition, the “Agreement on Enterprise Acquisition” under which the three defendants transferred Meitiankang Company was not lawfully submitted to the original approval organ for examination and approval. Whereas the three defendants sold the enterprise by fraud, the subject matter as sold out had serious defects. Da'an therefore pleaded the court to confirm the “Agreement on Enterprise Acquisition” concluded between both parties as null and void; to order the three defendants to refund the 5.816 million yuan of acquisition money which Da'an had paid, and 391,876 yuan of interest (counted up to March 31, 1998), as well; and to order the three defendants to compensate 1,203,866.34 yuan for the economic losses caused to Da'an. The three defendants should bear joint and several liabilities, and bear all the litigation costs for the present case.@#
......

 

大安实业有限责任公司诉海天水产公司、海康达生物技术开发公司、宝通建业有限公司企业收购合同纠纷案@#
@#
原告(反诉被告):沈阳大安实业有限责任公司。住所地:辽宁省沈阳市皇姑区松花江街。@#
法定代表人:赵代红,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:谢炳光,华联经济律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:刘思明,沈阳大安实业有限责任公司董事长助理。@#
被告(反诉原告):北京海天水产公司。住所地:北京市朝阳区南皋乡。@#
法定代表人:郭大民,该公司经理。@#
被告(反诉原告):北京海康达生物技术开发公司。住所地:北京市丰台区青塔村。@#
法定代表人:赵明军,该公司总经理。@#
被告(反诉原告):香港宝通建业有限公司。住所地:香港特别行政区中环德辅道。@#
法定代表人:陈敏春,该公司董事。@#
委托代理人:陈雨春,北京市水产销售公司职员。@#
三被告共同的委托代理:魏大凌,北京市商泰律师事务所律师@#
@#
原告沈阳大安实业有限责任公司(以下简称大安公司)因与被告北京海天水产公司(以下简称海天公司)、北京海康达生物技术开发公司(以下简称海康达公司)、香港宝通建业有限公司(以下简称宝通公司)发生企业收购合同纠纷,向北京市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:原告通过与三被告签订《企业收购协议书》,约定收购三被告合资兴办的中外合资企业北京美天康生物保健品有限公司(以下简称美天康公司)。为此,原告支付了581.6万元(本文涉及的货币名称,除特别注明的以外,均为人民币)。试生产时原告得知,美天康公司使用的生产办公用房属违法建筑物。随后原告经调查又发现,该建筑物的基础部位和整体结构存在着严重的危险隐患;另外,三被告转让美天康公司的《企业收购协议书》,也没有依法报请原审批机关审批。鉴于三被告采用欺诈的方式出售企业,出售的标的物具有严重缺陷,故请求确认双方签订的《企业收购协议书》无效;判令三被告返还原告已支付的581.6万元收购款及其利息391876元(暂计算至1998年3月31日);赔偿给原告造成的经济损失1203866.34元。三被告对此承担连带责任,并负担本案全部诉讼费用。@#
三被告答辨并反诉称:原美天康公司经三方股东授权与原告签订的《企业收购协议书》,是合法有效的,不存在欺诈原告的情节。合同应当继续履行,原告的诉讼请求应当依法驳回。按合同约定的收购价格,原告至今尚欠257.4万元。另外在原美天康公司的账上,还有三被告的45万元未转出,被原告占有。反诉请求:判令原告立即支付257.4万元欠款和该款的逾期支付利息,判令原告返还不当得利45万元及利息。@#
原告对反诉答辩称:由于《企业收购协议书》无效,三被告应当给原告返还收购款,不存在原告给付欠款及利息的问题。@#
北京市第二中级人民法院经审理查明:@#
由被告海天公司投资28.6万美元、海康达公司投资10.4万美元、宝通公司投资13万美元设立的内地与香港合资企业美天康公司,于1994年8月15日经北京市人民政府批准成立。该公司注册资本为52万美元,投资总额为74万美元。1997年3月30日,三方股东授权美天康公司与原告大安公司签订了《企业收购协议书》。约定:美天康公司的企业全部资产(包括注册资本52万美元折合的443万元,后续投入的资本300万元和该款利息40万元,美天康公司尚有的应付款56万元),作价839万元出让给大安公司。上述资产由三家股份组成,其中海天公司占55%,海康达公司占20%,宝通公司占25%.三家股东均同意将各自的股权全部转让给大安公司。大安公司同意美天康公司的出让价格,待对美天康公司各项投资使用经费等账目核准后,正式与美天康公司签订认证协议,作为本协议的补充。美天康公司现有占地2573.6平方米的场地及1400平方米的厂房、办公楼和和锅炉房,其产权非美天康公司所有,美天康公司与出租方签有20年的使用协议书。美天康公司保证在大安公司收购的同时,将承租方变更为大安公司并重新签约;美天康公司同意在出让企业产权的同时,将美天康益智宝胶丸产品的现有技术及现有生产批号全部转让给大安公司所有;美天康公司保证,向卫生部报批的美天康益智宝DHA胶丸应达到国家关于保健功能产品的质量标准要求,并负责该产品向卫生部的重新申报工作;卫生部批件下达后,美天康公司将全部申报材料交与大安公司;美天康公司力争在1997年7月底以前,将该产品所有审批手续办理完毕。大安公司的付款可分期分批进行。签订本协议时支付定金50万元(此款在合同履行时折为收购款),3月31日信汇50万元。此后,大安公司可以开始对美天康公司进行全面交接验收,验收合格后签署正式接收文件。1997年5月1日,大安公司付款100万元。剩余的639万元,从5月底开始在五个月内付清;每个月底的最后一天为付款时间,每次付款127.8万元;其中5月底的应付款中,应当有13万美元或者以8.53元的比价折算的等值港币,由大安公司负责在境外支付给宝通公司。大安公司对美天康公司原企业名称、产品名称有变更和继续使用的权利。在大安公司于5月1日付款100万元后,美天康公司同意待国家级企业生产批号下达,进行企业法人代表以及工商、税务、卫生、防疫、城管、公安等方面的变更手续。美天康公司如未能帮助大安公司办理完所有变更手续,大安公司有权拒付最后一期款项。上述协议一经签订,双方必须严格遵守并认真履行。大安公司如超过三个月不付款,所有已付款归美天康公司所有,企业由美天康公司收回。美天康公司如未能按合同条款履行,大安公司有权拒付应付余款,并不承担任何违约责任。@#
1997年4月1日,被告海天公司、海康达公司和原告大安公司又签订了《股权转让协议书》,约定:三方一致同意在报请董事会通过后,海天公司将其拥有的美天康公司55%股权、海康达公司将其拥有的美天康公司20%股权全部转让给大安公司。大安公司入资后,获得美天康公司股东资格,享有75%的股权,按股权比例承担美天康公司的债权、债务和相应的权利与义务,按股权比例分享利润和分担风险与亏损。大安公司承认并履行美天康公司修改后的合同、章程。本协议在海天公司、海康达公司收到大安公司的转让金,并经董事会决议通过,获得原审批机构批准后方可生效。@#
《企业收购协议书》和《股权转让协议书》签订后,原告大安公司于1997年4至5月间全面接收了美天康公司。5月14日,北京市人民政府给美天康公司换发了《中华人民共和国外商投资企业批准证书》。该证书载明:注册资本52万美元,投资者大安公司出资额为39万美元,投资者宝通公司出资额为13万美元。6月28日,国家工商行政管理局给美天康公司换发了《中华人民共和国企业法人营业执照》。该执照载明:企业类别为合资经营(港资),董事长为赵代红。10月29日,国家卫生部给美天康公司颁发了美天康DHA胶丸保健食品《批准证书》。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥800.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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