>>>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
 
Luck Treat Limited v. Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over validity of the arbitration agreement)
运裕有限公司(LuckTreatLimited)与深圳市中苑城商业投资控股有限公司申请确认仲裁协议效力案
【法宝引证码】

LuckTreatLimited v. Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over validity of the arbitration agreement) 运裕有限公司(LuckTreatLimited)与深圳市中苑城商业投资控股有限公司申请确认仲裁协议效力案
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
(2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Te 1 (2019)最高法民特1号
Claimant: Luck Treat Limited. Domicile: Level 1, Palm Grove House, Wickham's Cay 1, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. 申请人:运裕有限公司(LuckTreatLimited)。住所地:英属维尔京群岛托尔托拉岛罗德城威克姆礁**棕榈树阁**(Level1,PalmGroveHouse,Wickham'sCay1,RoadTown,Tortola,BritishVirginIslands)。
Representative: Chen Rong, director. 代表人:陈荣,该公司董事。
Attorney: Guo Meng, Beijing Tiantong (Zhengzhou) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:郭萌,北京市天同(郑州)律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Li Qian, Beijing Tiantong (Shenzhen) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:李谦,北京市天同(深圳)律师事务所律师。
Respondent: Zhong Yuan Cheng Commercial Investment Holdings Co Ltd. Domicile: Level 1&2, Shangsha Commercial Complex, Binhe Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, the People's Republic of China. 被申请人:深圳市中苑城商业投资控股有限公司。
Legal representative: Zhou Xiaolin, chairman of the board of directors. 法定代表人:周晓林,该公司董事长。
Attorney: Zhu Lan, Beijing Horizon (Shenzhen) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:朱兰,北京市地平线(深圳)律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Wu Xu, Beijing Horizon (Shenzhen) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:伍勖,北京市地平线(深圳)律师事务所律师。
On 19 February 2019, this Court accepted an application for the review of the validity of an arbitration agreement between the Claimant, Luck Treat Limited ("Luck Treat"), and the Respondent, Zhong Yuan Cheng Commercial Investment Holdings Co Ltd. ("Zhong Yuan Cheng") . The review is now completed. 申请人运裕有限公司(以下简称运裕公司)与被申请人深圳市中苑城商业投资控股有限公司(以下简称中苑城公司)申请确认仲裁协议效力一案,本院于2019年2月19日立案后进行了审查。现已审查终结。
Basic Facts 基本案情
Luck Treat requests confirmation that no valid arbitration clause existed in the Equity Transfer Contract and the Debt Settlement Agreement between Luck Treat and Zhong Yuan Cheng. The facts and reasons are as follows: The contracts themselves have not been established, and therefore the arbitration clause has not been established. (I)The contracts have not been established. The 100% equity in Newpower Enterprises Inc. ("Newpower") held by Luck Treat was listed on the China Beijing Equity Exchange ("CBEX") for sale, and Zhong Yuan Cheng was confirmed as the sole qualified prospective transferee. Thereafter, the parties negotiated the Equity Transfer Contract and the Debt Settlement Agreement over multiple emails and specified that the initialed versions of both documents would only be signed after final confirmation by CBEX and Luck Treat's parent company, China Tourism Group. Luck Treat also requested Zhong Yuan Cheng to complete the overseas investment procedures and pay the contractual price in foreign currency outside China in compliance with the relevant regulations. Zhong Yuan Cheng refused to perform its legal obligations of applying for the approval of overseas investment and carrying out foreign exchange registration procedures. After its requests were refused multiple times, Luck Treat notified Zhong Yuan Cheng to cancel the transaction. Article 32 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China ("Contract Law") provides that: "Where the parties conclude a contract in the form of a written contractual agreement, the contract is established upon the signature or seal of both parties."Article 17 of the initialed version of the Equity Transfer Contract provides that: "This Contract shall become effective upon signature and seal by the legal representatives or authorized representatives of Party A and Party B simultaneously with the Debt Settlement Agreement."In accordance with the above legal provisions and the agreement, neither the Equity Transfer Contract nor the Debt Settlement Agreement was established, as Zhong Yuan Cheng refused to perform its legal obligations or fulfill the compliance requirements, the texts of the contracts were not agreed on, and the contracts were not signed. In fact, the parties have not even completed the offer-and-acceptance process for the purpose of entering into a contract. (II) The arbitration clause in the contracts has not been established either. The initialed versions of both documents include the following arbitration clause: The dispute shall be referred to the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration for arbitration. However, no arbitration clause can be established separately from the main contract, and the parties had no express intention to enter into an arbitration agreement separately before entering into the main contract. Therefore, no arbitration clause has been established, and therefore there is no valid arbitration clause between Luck Treat and Zhong Yuan Cheng in respect of the matters under discussion in the Equity Transfer Contract. (III) Luck Treat is not a party to the Debt Settlement Agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause in that Agreement is not binding on Luck Treat. 运裕公司请求:确认运裕公司与中苑城公司之间就《产权交易合同》及《债权清偿协议》不存在有效的仲裁条款。事实和理由如下:合同本身未成立,因而其中的仲裁条款亦未成立。(一)合同未成立。运裕公司通过北京产权交易所(以下简称北交所)挂牌转让其持有的新劲企业公司(NewpowerEnterprisesInc.,以下简称新劲公司)100%的股权,中苑城公司被确定为唯一合格意向受让方。之后,双方就《产权交易合同》及《债权清偿协议》通过电子邮件反复磋商,明确两份文件的草签版须经北交所及运裕公司等上级中国旅游集团公司(以下简称中旅公司)最终确认后方可签署。运裕公司还要求中苑城公司依据国家相关规定,办理境外投资手续并在境外以外汇方式支付交易价款。中苑城公司拒绝履行境外投资审批和外汇登记手续等法定义务。运裕公司在多次催告未果的情况下,通知中苑城公司取消交易。《中华人民共和国合同法》(以下简称《合同法》)第三十二条规定:“当事人采用合同书形式订立合同的,自双方当事人签字或者盖章时合同成立”。《产权交易合同》草签版本第十七条约定:“本合同经甲乙双方法定代表人或授权代表签字并盖章后,与《债权清偿协议》同时生效。”依据上述法律规定和约定,因中苑城公司拒绝履行法定义务与合规要求,合同文本未达成一致,更未能签署,故《产权交易合同》《债权清偿协议》均未成立。事实上,双方甚至未完成合同订立的要约和承诺过程。(二)合同中的仲裁条款亦未成立。两份文件草签版均包含如下仲裁条款:有关争议,提交深圳国际仲裁院仲裁。但仲裁条款不能脱离主合同而单独成立,双方当事人亦无脱离主合同成立而先行单独达成仲裁协议的明确意思表示。故仲裁条款也未成立,运裕公司与中苑城公司之间就《产权交易合同》文本所商讨事项不存在有效的仲裁条款。(三)运裕公司并非《债权清偿协议》的当事方,故该协议中的仲裁条款不能拘束运裕公司。
...... 中苑城公司称,《产权交易合同》《债权清偿协议》已经成立并生效,双方在协商履行《产权交易合同》《债权清偿协议》中已就本案纠纷提交仲裁达成合意,双方之间存在有效的仲裁协议。(一)合同已成立并生效。本案产权转让是在北交所主持下、根据相关交易规则达成交易,交易合同依法成立并生效。运裕公司、新劲公司、深圳维景京华酒店有限公司(以下简称维景京华酒店公司)、北京港中旅维景国际酒店管理有限公司(以下简称维景酒店公司)(上述四公司以下合称运裕公司等)均应按照公告内容与中苑城公司签署《产权交易合同》《债权清偿协议》文本。1.双方已就案涉产权的转让完成了要约和承诺。运裕公司委托北交所发布案涉交易公告,披露了交易的全部信息,并作出相关承诺。以上公告为运裕公司等发出的要约邀请。之后,中苑城公司向北交所提出受让申请。北交所向中苑城公司发出《受让资格确认通知书》,要求中苑城公司在2017年5月4日前支付保证金,“在上述时限内交纳保证金后获得资格确认”,这是运裕公司等提出的要约。中苑城公司按照要求,当天即支付了人民币2.7亿元保证金,获得唯一受让资格,构成承诺。至此双方达成交易并按北交所交易规则开始履行。鉴于本案合同并非法律法规规定应办理批准生效手续的情形,本案交易合同依法已经成立和生效。2.根据运裕公司挂牌公告的承诺和北交所交易规则,运裕公司等有义务在确定中苑城公司为最终受让人起五个工作日内,按照公告条件与中苑城公司在《产权交易合同》《债权清偿协议》文本上签字盖章。3.运裕公司等在双方已按公告条件确认成交后,随意更改挂牌的交易条件,改变以人民币结算的交易规则,要求中苑城公司在境外以外汇方式向其支付本次交易价款,违反了自身承诺和北交所交易规则。4.本案交易是在北交所进行,双方就交易的标的、价款、数量、履行方式、前置条件等实质性条款已经达成一致意见后摘牌成交的。书面交易合同并非双方之间关于本次交易的唯一法律文件,决定双方存在产权交易合同关系的文件还包括双方向北交所提出的申请书、承诺书、公告、通知、保证金支付凭证等,这些文件同样对双方具有约束力。本案产权交易不属于需经政府部门核准生效的境外投资事项,而属于政府部门备案事项,签署产权交易合同是办理本案交易合同备案手续的前提。(二)仲裁条款已成立。1.2017年5月11日,运裕公司等通过电子邮件向中苑城公司发来命名为“草签版”的交易合同文本,其中明确向中苑城公司提出了将争议提交深圳国际仲裁院仲裁的要约。中苑城公司于当天即在该交易合同文本上签字盖章,以电子签名、电子邮件和纸质签字盖章EMS邮递两种方式回复告知了运裕公司等。至此,双方之间已就仲裁协议达成合意,且仲裁合意之后保持不变。2.仲裁条款独立性原则决定,即使双方还没有完成签署书面合同文本,仲裁条款的存在及生效也不受影响。《中华人民共和国仲裁法》(以下简称《仲裁法》)第十九条、《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》(以下简称《仲裁法解释》)第十条等规定确认了仲裁条款的独立性。根据上述规定,本案仲裁条款已经达成,独立存在且已生效。运裕公司等最终声称“取消交易”,但始终未要求取消仲裁协议。3.运裕公司等以交易合同文本未经其集团内部最终审批同意,亦未签署为由,认为仲裁条款不存在,是将其内部审批的效力强加于中苑城公司,混淆了内部管理关系和外部法律关系。因此,本案“草签版”合同中的仲裁条款,应对双方有约束力。(三)运裕公司等尽管主体不同,但实质上权利全部归属于中旅公司,《产权交易合同》和《债权清偿协议》共同构成本案交易的完整内容,不可分割,应共同履行交易合同转让方的义务,接受仲裁条款约束。综上,本案双方之间的仲裁协议在形式上、内容上已经满足我国仲裁法规定的所有必要条件,请求依法认定双方之间存在有效的仲裁协议,驳回运裕公司的申请。
 经审查查明:中国旅游集团有限公司,原名为中国旅游集团公司、中国港中旅集团公司,是国有独资公司。香港中旅(集团)有限公司(以下简称香港中旅公司)是中旅公司的全资子公司,注册于香港。运裕公司是香港中旅公司的全资子公司,注册于英属维尔京群岛。新劲公司是运裕公司的全资子公司,亦注册于英属维尔京群岛。
 2016年3月24日,中旅公司作出《关于同意挂牌转让NEWPOWERENTERPRISESINC.100%股权的批复》,同意运裕公司依法合规转让其所持有的新劲公司100%的股权。2017年3月29日,运裕公司通过北交所公开挂牌转让其持有的新劲公司100%的股权。挂牌转让公告中“与转让相关的其他条件”要求受让方“在签署《产权交易合同》的同时与转让方的关联方签署《债权清偿协议》,明确了解并同意《产权交易合同》约定的债权清偿是股权转让的重要前置条件。”4月,中苑城公司与北京金羊泰和投资咨询有限公司签订《产权交易委托合同》,委托后者按照北交所的交易规则为中苑城公司收购新劲公司股权交易提供场内经纪服务。4月27日,北交所向运裕公司出具《受让资格确认意见函》,载明案涉项目信息披露公告期满,征得意向受让方两个——中苑城公司和许燕星。4月28日,北交所向中苑城公司发出《受让资格确认通知书》,通知中苑城公司于5月4日前,将保证金人民币2.7亿元交付到北交所指定的结算账户,并明确中苑城公司在规定时限内交纳保证金后获得资格确认,如逾期未交,则视为放弃受让。同日,中苑城公司向北交所指定的结算账户转入人民币2.7亿元保证金。5月3日,北交所向中苑城公司出具人民币2.7亿元保证金收据。由于许燕星逾期未交纳保证金,故案涉项目仅剩中苑城公司一个意向受让人。
 ......

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 【¥1000.00】 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