The Equity Disputes Of Investment Company Of ShenZhen XLY Vs Mr.Xu

The behavior of stockholder 's behalf on behalf of holding is a kind of hidden investment behavior which is more and more common under the market economy development.The characteristics of anonymous investment determines that it has a special legal characteristic with uncertain and misleading factors,in particular,its investment subject identity is chaotic,which causes the company to have hidden dangers of disputes,but it is precisely such a kind of Special unconventional,investment behavior,but in today's market economy and social development is widespread in Shenzhen Xinliyuan investment company and Xu Yuli implicit shareholding dispute case is a typical representative.Shenzhen Xinliyuan Company and Xu Yuli entered into an agreement on behalf of the Company and agreed to purchase 58% of the shares held by the original three shareholders of Yunnan Rongda Company under the name of Xuyu Li.The actual e quity of the equity interest was owned by Shenzhen Xinliyuan Company,After the acquisition of the equity by the agreement,the two sides signed an equity transfer agreement,the name of the shares held by the name of the transfer of ownership to the Sony source company,after the completion of the registration of the company's stake in the shares of the I force disputes,and filed civil arbitration.The case mainly involves the existence of the two parties involved on behalf of the relationship between hol ding capacity of large companies 58% of the equity change the effect of significant,Xu Yu is entitled to 215 million shares of the three claims of the focus of controversy.On the case of the facts and analysis of relevant legal issues found that the new force between the company and Xu Yu force on behalf of the shareholders on behalf of the agreement in line with the "judicial interpretation of the three companies," it is found that the two sides equity agreement on behalf of the agreement was established,and Xu Yu Li can not own The new force source company 58% of the shares of Yunnan Rongda significant changes in the effectiveness of the two sides have agreed in advance of the Equity Transfer Agreement,in line with the company law on the equity Change the provisions,and the remnants of capacity can not provide the other large shareholders of the company to change the name of the proposed acts of objection to the evidence,so that the change is effective;Rights and obligations of view,Xu Yu Li is thei r own advances for the new source of shares on behalf of the company,in the transfer of shares at the same time should have the right to request money from the Sony source,it does not support the Xin Liyuan company denied Xu Yuqiang the right to claim.