Case Study On Dispute Of Wu Feng V. Huiyin Company And Shareholders

The company's capital system is the core system of the company.The registered capital subscribed by the company's shareholders is the company's credit basis.The case of Wu Feng v.Huiyin Company and shareholders is a company dispute arising from the company's violation of the law to raise shares.There are two main points of dispute in this case.One is the determination of the effectiveness of the Investment Shares Agreement between Wu Feng and Huiyin Company.The other is whether the Huiyin Company should bear the supplementary liability.In this case,Huiyin Company,in the event that the promoters have not paid up the subscription shares,will raise the shares,violating the mandatory provisions of the company law.According to Article 52 of the Contract Law,the case concerning the Investment Shares Agreement shall be invalid.Both parties to the agreement have a fault in the invalidity of the agreement,so they should assume responsibility within the scope of their respective faults.Huiyin Company shall return the investment of Wu Feng.Wu Feng hasn't right to request Huiyin Company to compensate the interest loss of funds.As for whether the shareholders of the company should bear the supplementary compensation liability,the actual consideration is the necessity and conditions for the shareholders to subscribe for the capital contribution in the case to expedite the expiration.At present,Chinese law clearly stipulates that the application of shareholders' capital to accelerate the expiration is limited to Article 35 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.In addition,it is difficult to find a direct legal basis for requesting the application of shareholders to accelerate the expiration in non-bankruptcy proceedings.Therefore,in the judicial practice,the opinions of the courts on the issue of accelerating the payment of shareholders' shareholders are generally conservative.Specifically,Wu Feng v.Huiyin Company and the shareholder's investment dispute case,Wu Feng could not prove that Huiyin Company was unable to pay off the external debt during the trial.Huiyin Company did not maliciously deceive Wu Feng and violated the principle of honesty and credit.The Huiyin Company has not maliciously weakened the company ' s capital to harm Wufeng's interests.Therefore,combined with the specific case and legal basis,it is not appropriate to directly determine that the shareholders of Huiyin Company should bear the supplementary liability for Wu Feng.However,if the company's ability topay off debts is found in the execution process,it may be considered to apply for additional company shareholders as the enforcee in accordance with the provisions of the existing judicial interpretation.