Research On The Application Of Gambling Agreement In China-for Example In The Case Of Haifu Sued

After the reform and opening up, China ’s capital market development is slow,resulting in China’s private enterprises financing difficulties, so many of our privateenterprises, regarded steering the direction of the foreign capital market financing;same time, as a stable investment environment in China, many internationalorganizations have begun to invest concerned about the economy is relatively stable,market development potential of the Chinese market. Terms of the agreement ongambling as an investment often used, comes with a good investment environmentand the history of Anglo-American law, then the agreement on gambling in China ’slegal environment, and how its effectiveness qualitatively it, Admiralty Group suedGansu Shi Heng refused to fulfill an agreement on gambling case will question thelegality of gambling agreement specified under the direction of the Chinese legalsystem.In the first part of the article describes the relationship between private equityinvestment agreement on gambling, gambling agreement of concepts and theirvalue, as well as an agreement on gambling in China. Pointed out that an agreementon gambling as a valuation adjustment mechanism, the two sides in the capitalinvestment and financing and equity exchange ratio calculation, due to the initialvaluation of enterprises have differences, so specified in the order for a future dateperformance evaluation criteria, re-adjust Negotiated equity allocation. When itcomes to gambling in our application of the agreement, the article cited the case ofthe use of gambling agreement during our recent corporate investment and financing,which are winners and losers. The second part describes the agreement on gamblingin the legitimacy of the legal framework as well as in the use of legal and regulatorybarriers. The second section shows no validity in the Chinese gambling agreementmade specific provisions, which was mainly due to China’s " Contract Law","Company Law" and other aspects of legal regulation, because of the particularity ofChina’s legal system, obstacles in their specific applications also exist. The third part of Admiralty cases were brief and were analyzed with the ideas of its ruling, theauthors believe that the focus of controversy in this case is the subject of gamblingagreements set between the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of shareholders ongambling, betting against denial of shareholders and enterprises. In the fourth part ofthe article the author analyzes the significance of the case and the judgment of thegambling agreement on how the two sides when setting to avoid legal risksrecommendations.