An Analysis On Equity Dispute Between Plaintiff Mr.Qi And Defendant Mr.Li,Mr.Ding And Company A

In commercial practice, more and more natural persons have been taking participation in market economy by virtue of establishing companies. Companies are classified into one-man company, limited liability companies and stock corporation. Limited liability companies are the most common form of commercial subjects due to their own characteristics in commercial activities, in which the recognition of shareholder qualification is the focus point of difficult problems. In this case, the equity dispute between Plaintiff Mr. Qi and Defendant Mr. Li, Mr. Ding and Company A correlates to the very kind of recognition of shareholder qualification. First, a series of direct evidence in the proceedings, such as company register of shareholders, investment and business registration certificate, prove that Mr. Qi is the shareholder of Company A, while the circumstantial evidence Mr. Li submitting to the court is not able form a complete chain of evidence and does not satisfy a high degree of probability standard of proof, so that the judge can not make a free evaluation of evidence to the extent of inner conviction, and therefore inadmissible. Second, as regards whether Mr. Ding can obtain the 10% stake with good will transferred by Mr. Li, behaviors of Mr. Li and Mr. Liu constitute the agency by estoppel and make the bona fide counterpart Mr. Ding pay the equity transfer expanse and make the industrial and commercial registration with the assistance of the executive staff of industrial and commercial institution. In this sense, behaviors of Mr. Ding constitute compliance with the requirements made with good will, and Mr. Ding actually takes participation in the company operation. Therefore, behaviors of Mr. Ding obtaining the stake of Mr. Qi should be recognized. In addition, the limitation of actions of Mr. Qi does not been exceeded for that fact that Mr. Qi is restricted of personal freedom by the judiciary, thus in line with relevant provisions of the "Civil Law" on the interruption of the statute of limitations. Finally, as regards the status of Company A in this case, Company A is a third party with no independent litigation right for claim and should not bear corresponding responsibility for there is not a dispute about the ownership stake between Company A and other parties in this case on the issue of equity dispute.