Research On Disputes Of Enforcement Of Equity Holding

There are three reasons why the enforcement objection lawsuits caused by the enforcement of equity holdings are so controversial.First,some trial courts did not follow the trial procedures prescribed by law;second,many concepts of equity holdings themselves are unclearly defined;third,the trial courts abused appearanceism and ignored the essence of equity Attribution considerations.In order to resolve the issue of the controversy in the enforcement of the enforcing equity holdings,it needs to be carried out from two levels.One is to answer the disputes in the entrusted equity holdings;the other is to deal with both the actual investor and the nominal shareholder and creditor.The protection priority is judged.The essence of holding equity for others is that the actual investor holds the company’s equity through the nominal shareholder.Equity holding is accompanied by the development of China’s corporate system.In the judicial practice of China,there are many reasons for the proxy holding of shares,and the proxy holding of shares caused by a lot of policy factors has its special features.It needs to be regulated from the special incentives of the proxy holding of stocks in China.Although the Third Explanation of the Company Law has provided clearer standards for judicial trials,the vague treatment of key concepts has led to disputes in both judicial practice and theory.From the perspective of interpretation theory,the "investment rights and interests" in Article 24 of the Third Explanation of the Company Law is not only a pure property interest,but also includes personal rights and interests.Its conceptual scope should be greater than ordinary creditor’s rights and less than the rights of a company shareholder.Shareholder rights.In the suit for confirmation of shareholder qualifications of actual investors,more than half of the company’s remaining shareholders agreed that it was only a formal element for the identification of actual investors rather than the confirmation of shareholder qualifications.In an enforcement objection lawsuit,the determination of the actual investor’s right to be sufficient to exclude enforcement does not need to be named as an absolute standard.There are conflicts between the current laws and regulations related to enforcement objections,which will make it difficult for the actual investor to claim shareholder qualifications to exclude compulsory enforcement relief.You can refer to the provisions of other civil law countries such as Germany and Japan on enforcement objections.To consider the deficiencies of the relevant regulations in our country.The Minutes of the National Court of Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference criticizes the abuse of appearanceism in judicial trials worthy of recognition.The appearance of rights does not apply to execution procedures.In judicial practice,based on the "unlawful" nature of the equity holdings,it is universally believed that the actual investors are too sloppy attributable to the enforcement of the equity holdings.Nominee shareholders and creditors who have not established mortgage registration for the equity held on their behalf are also attributable.The trial of execution objections caused by the enforcement of proxy holdings should return to the rational judgment of the actual ownership of the proxy holdings and the priority of rights between the nominal shareholder creditor and the actual investor.The rights enjoyed by actual investors are more worthy of protection than nominal shareholders and creditors.For the loss that the nominal shareholder creditor cannot suffer from execution,it may be considered to make up for it by requiring the actual investor to pay a certain amount of compensation.Facing up to the existence value and significance of equity holding as an investment method,and carrying out correct guidance and regulation,can we use equity holdings to activate the economy while safeguarding the interests of all parties.