案例分析1----重庆渝富资产经营管理有限公司诉上海万浦精细概要

重庆渝富资产经营管理有限公司诉上海万浦精细设备经销有限公司股权转让纠纷案重庆市高级人民法院民事判决书(2009渝高法民初字第10号原告:重庆渝富资产经营管理有限公司。

法定代表人:何智亚,该公司董事长。

委托代理人:徐来庆,重庆维祯律师事务所律师。

委托代理人:苟婷,重庆维祯律师事务所律师。

被告:上海万浦精细设备经销有限公司。

法定代表人:石茜,该公司董事长。

案件基本事实:原告重庆渝富资产经营管理有限公司(以下简称渝富公司与上海万浦精细设备经销有限公司(以下简称万浦公司股权转让纠纷一案,本院于2009年11月23日立案受理后,依法组成合议庭,适用普通程序于2010年3月30日公开开庭进行了审理。

原告渝富公司的委托代理人徐来庆、苟婷到庭参加诉讼,被告万浦公司经本院公告传唤未到庭参加诉讼,本案依法缺席审理,现已审理终结。

原告渝富公司诉称:2005年9月29日,渝富公司与中国华融资产管理公司(以下简称华融公司、北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司及万浦公司签订了《股权转让协议》,该协议约定由渝富公司以300万元对价向北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司及万浦公司购买共3159.6万股重庆国际实业投资股份有限公司(以下简称重庆实业股票。

原告已依约支付对价,万浦公司至今未办理所持有的746.6万股重庆市实业股票的过户手续。

请求:1.将万浦公司所持有的746.6万股重庆实业股票过户到渝富公司名下;2.本案诉讼费、保全费由被告承担。

证据:为证明上述事实,原告在法庭确定的举证时限内向本院提交了以下证据:。

1.《股权转让协议》;2.银行记账凭证;3.华融公司出具的《发票》;4.山东省济南市中级人民法院《协助执行通知书》(2005济中法执字第60号;南京市中级人民法院《协助执行通知书》(2004宁民二初字第78号;重庆市高级人民法院《协助执行通知书》;5.重庆实业2007年9月7日、2008年8月30日、2008年12月3日《关于股东股权过户的提示性公告》。

拟证明:1.原、被告双方签订了股权转让合同;且原告已按约支付了股权转让款,履行完了合同义务;2.根据合同约定,其他三家均已办理股权过户手续,合同已得到大部分履行;3.根据合同约定,被告至今未将约定的股权过户至原告名下以上证据已经以本庭质证,对其真实性予以确认。

被告万浦公司未到庭也未提出书面答辩。

经法院审理查明:2005年9月29日,华融公司作为甲方,万浦公司、北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司作为乙方,渝富公司作为丙方,签订了《关于重庆国际实业投资股份有限公司股份转让协议》(以下简称《股份转让协议》,该协议约定:(1甲方与乙方签订《托管协议》,乙方将其拥有的全部资产托管给甲方,由甲方行使全部的管理和处置权。

根据《托管协议书》,甲方(华融公司拥有对乙方持有的重庆实业社会法人股3159.6万股股份全部的处置权。

(2协议股份已全部质押给银行或被法院查封、冻结。

(3甲方、乙方同意将甲方所托管的、乙方(万浦等公司所持有的重庆实业社会法人股3159.6万股股份转让给丙方,丙方同意按本协议规定的条件及方式受让协议股份。

(4各方同意协议股份转让对价款总额为300万元;丙方在《股份转让协议》签署后的10个工作日内支付给甲方人民币300万元股份转让对价款。

如重庆实业未能与债权人达成债务重组协议,则视为丙方重组重庆实业债务未成功,《股份转让协议》自动终止,甲方退还丙方支付的股权转让对价款300万元人民币。

协议签订后,渝富公司于2009年10月19日依约支付了股份转让款人民币300万元。

2007年9月7日、2008年8月30日、2008年12月3日,重庆实业公司分别发布《关于股东股权过户的提示性公告》,公告北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司持有的1200万股、286.4万股、926.6万股重庆实业法人股已过户到渝富公司。

万浦公司未依约办理股权过户。

2009年11月29日,原告渝富公司诉至本院。

2009年12月3日,华融公司出具《关于恳请协助办理重庆实业股权过户手续的函》(华融函[2009]81号,恳请本院协助办理万浦精细公司持有的746.6万股重庆实业股份向渝富公司过户的手续。

本院认为:渝富公司与华融公司、北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司及万浦公司签订的《股权转让协议》系各方当事人的真实意思表示,不违反法律法规的禁止性规定,应合法有效,。

该合同具备履行条件,。

各方当事人应依约履行合同项下义务,。

渝富公司在协议签订后已及时向对方支付了股权转让价款300万元,。

北京中经四通信息技术发展有限公司、重庆皇丰实业有限公司、上海华岳投资管理有限公司也已履行自己合同项下股权过户义务。

万浦公司未依约将其持有的746.6万股重庆实业股份过户到渝富公司名下,其行为构成违约。

渝富公司请求将万浦公司持有的746.6万股重庆实业股份过户其名下的主张应得到支持。

其《股权转让协议》虽约定“协议股份已全部质押给银行或被法院查封、冻结”,但渝富公司对此明知,视为其愿意承受该股权上的权利负担,渝富公司请求股权过户的权利不受该股权权利质押影响。

渝富公司请求将万浦公司持有的746.6万股重庆实业股份过户其名下的主张应得到支持。

依据根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第六十条、第一百零七条,《中华人民共和国担保法》第七十八条第(二款及《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十二十八条之的规定,判决如下:上海万浦精细设备经销有限公司于在本判决生效之日起十日内将其持有的7466000股重庆国际实业投资股份有限公司股票(证券代码:000736过户至重庆渝富资产经营管理有限公司。

本案案件受理费17.2082万元,诉讼保全费5000元,合计17.7082万元,由上海万浦精细设备经销有限公司负担。

如不服本判决,可在判决书送达之日起十五日内向本院递交上诉状,并按对方当事人的人数提出副本,上诉于中华人民共和国最高人民法院。

审判长李季宁审判员刘玉妹代理审判员朱鸿春二Ο一Ο年四月十五日书记员苏秋丹Case Analysis 2Chongqing Yufu Asset Management Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Wanpu Sophisticated Equipment Sales Co., Ltd. in the Matter of Share Transfer DisputePlaintiff: “Chongqing Yufu”Legal Representative: Zhiya He, chairman of the board of directors of the company Counselor with Power of Attorney: LaiqingXu, Chongqing Weizhen Law Firm Counselor with Power of Attorney: TIng Gou, Chongqing Weizhen Law Firm Defendant: “Shanghai Wanpu”Legal Representative: Xi Shi, chairwoman of the board of directors of the company Basic Facts:A contract of transfer of shares in Chongqing Industry Company was entered into by and between Chongqing Yufu as the transferee and Shanghai Wangpu as the transferor.But it turns out that the defendant, Shanghai Wanpu has failed to completely performed the share transfer contract by assisting with transacting the formality of transferring the title to the shares, following the plaintiff’s full performance of the obligation of delivering the consideration of the shares to be transferred, i.e., a certain amount of cashes as required by the transfer agreement.Under such circumstances, Chongqing Yufu brought a suit against Shanghai Wanpu, requesting the court to rule as follows: 1. Shanghai Wanpu shall perform its obligation under the share transfer agreement of transferring the title to the sharesat issue to Chongqing Yufu. 2. The expenses of this litigation and the relevant property preservation fees shall be borne by the defendant.Evidence:In an effort to prove that the defendant so far has not performed its contractual obligation of transferring the title to the shares at issue, the plaintiff has collected and submitted to the court a series of evidence, which includes the original written contract of share transfer and Chongqing Company’s “Reminding Notice to Shareholder to Transfer Title to Shares”.According to Art.5, Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure by the Supreme People’s Court, in contractual disputes, th e burden of evidence as to the facts of the contract having been entered into and effective lies with the party that maintains that contractual relationship has formed and taken effect. From the facts, it can be seen that the plaintiff has discharged its burden of proof. As a result, the burden of proof then has transferred to the opposing party in the litigation, because Art.5 also provides that the burden of proof in connection with whether contractual obligations have been performed falls upon the party with the obligation to perform the contract.Due to the fact that the court has recognized the truthfulness, legality and relevance of the evidence the plaintiff submitted and that the defendant has failed to submit any effective evidence proving that it has performed its contractual obligation of transferring the title to shares to the plaintiff, naturally the unfavorable litigious consequence shall be borne by the defendant for failing to discharge the burden of proof on its part.Core Issue of This CaseOne contentious issue is that whether the plaintiff’s right to request the defendant to transfer the title to the shares (on which, however, a security of interest of pledge hasalready been created for the benefit of the creditor of the defendant would be prevented or blocked by the pledgee’s rights or security interest.The Chongqing High Court simply holds in its judgment that the plaintiff’s (Chongqing Yufu right to request for transfer of the title to the pledged shares will not be adversely influenced by the pledge on the shares simply because it is the defendant that willingly accept such encumbrances on the shares to be transferred. But, this expression, prima facie, is inconsistent with Art.226 of Property Right Law, which provides that shares cannot be transferred after being pledged, unless the pledgor has reached agreement with the pledgee to such transfer. That is to say, under Art.226, without ple dgee’s consent, the formality of transfer of title cannot be completed.Obviously, Chongqing High c ourt’s such ruling is aimed at ensuring the transferability of the pledged shares, but just turns out to be at the expense of the pledgor’s security intere st. Therefore, in order to strike a balance between pledged shares’ transferability and pledgor’s se curity interest, it is recommended that Art.191,Property Right Law shall be referenced and applied by analogy. Art.191 provides that, during the time period of mortgaging, the mortgagor cannot transfer the mortgaged property without the consent given by the mortgagee, unless the transferee has paid off the debt on the debtor’s behalf eliminating the mortgage right. Accordingly, Chongqing High court shall apply Art.191 by analogy to the pledged shares at issue, ruling that even without the consent of the share transfer by the pledgee, such pledged shares still can be transferred after the plaintiff (transferee pays off the debt eliminating the pledge right.In a word, this author believe that the pledged shares can be transferred even without the consent given by the pledgor, but only on the condition that the transferee pays off the debt on behalf the debtor (transferor eliminating the pledge right in the first place.。