Case Analysis Report On Dissolution Of Liyuan Co.,Ltd.,Liehaiquan Power

Since China's new "Company Law" introduced the company's judicial dissolution system for the first time in 2006,in the ten years,the company's judicial dissolving cases showed a rapid upward trend.At the same time,the Supreme People's Court issued the guidance case No.8 in 2012,followed by the case of the bulletin announced by the Supreme People's Court.With the drastic revision of the capital system in the 2013 Company Law,the company's judicial dissolution from 2014 to 2017 The trend of the "big bang" is growing rapidly.Under such a realistic background,Article 182 of the "Company Law" and the provisions of the "Judicial Interpretation of the " Company Law "(II)" regarding the dissolution of the company's judiciary are more monotonous and general.In reality,the No.8 guiding case is cited.The situation is far from reaching its ideal guidance level and is often shelved.For this reason,the author thinks it is necessary to recognize such a situation.The No.8 guiding case can open up space for some cases,but more reality depends on the discretion of different courts or even different judges;moreover,the judicial dissolution judgment of the company The result is nothing more than the dissolution or non-dissolution of such binary results.Therefore,the criteria and reasons for the initial determination of the court's decision are reviewed,and the different criteria and reasons for recognition are examined.The reasons for this phenomenon may be considered,or the current legislation and case guidance system may be improved.It makes more sense.This article adopts the method of case analysis and data empirical analysis,and analyzes them from the two parts of theory and judicial practice.The first part of the article: A visual analysis of the current practice of the company's judicial dissolving cases,through the analysis of the characteristics of several quantitative indicators of the respondent company,it concludes that the accused company is mostly a limited liability company with a single equity structure in coastal developed provinces;This selection of various data indicators and the overall judicial situation of the coordination of the case of the case of the case of the sea as the main case,through the court to define the analysis of the company's judicial dissolution standards leads to the author wanted to analyze the controversial focus.The second part of the article is mainly focused on the four controversial focuses of the case of the Lihai Sea right,and carries out a theoretical analysis and an analysis of the judicial practice.The specific discussion is: First,the subject research of the company's dissolving lawsuit is said from apositive perspective: If there is no higher-level documentary evidence to conflict with the published commercial registration,the business registration information can prove the qualification of an eligible shareholder.On the other hand,"malicious lawsuit" does not affect the shareholders' eligibility to file a dissolution.Secondly,the specific connotation and identification criteria of “severe difficulties in business management” are comprehensively determined from the perspective of human and equity compliance,and it is believed that the formation of a business decision-making is difficult to pass and constitutes a “ corporate stalemate”;and thirdly,“Continuing to survive will make shareholders The identification and application of benefits are subject to significant losses,based on the theoretical orientation of the exit mechanism of the eligible shareholders,and at the same time due to the judicial practice in which the interests of the shareholders with severe management and management impairment are impaired,the loss of shareholder interests indicates the rights and long-term expectations of the shareholders expressing their will.The frustration of economic interests.Fourth,the determination of “cannot be solved by other means”,the court based on the dual remedy approach,has the measures stipulated in the “Corporate Law”,and it needs to exercise the right of discretion of the individual case court to reach the ultimate exhaustion.Remedy.Finally,by reviewing the above-mentioned focus theories and the practice of similar cases and returning to the theoretical position of the company's judicial dissolution system,we believe that only a pluralistic judging path and a sufficient level of justification are built under the current legislative and judicial interpretation framework.In order to better respond to the judicial practice of corporate judicial dissolution of cases.