2009年12月28日，新加坡私人有限责任公司铃兰公司对股权结构进行调整，会议纪要载明“调整后盛浩民拥有铃兰公司35%股权，吴培良拥有铃兰公司10%股权”；2010年8月14日，铃兰公司股东会决议再次明确，盛浩民、吴培良实缴金额及承担财务成本金额占铃兰公司资本金的45%；其中盛浩民持股比例为35%、吴培良持股比例为10%。各股东均在会议纪要和股东会决议上签字确认。该45%的股权全数登记于盛浩民名下。2011年12月1日，盛浩民将该45%的股权转让给案外人，铃兰公司董事会决议载明公司股东一致同意承担连带付款责任。盛浩民收到股权转让款后，未向吴培良支付其10%股权的相应比例转让款。吴培良多次催讨无果后诉至法院。

裁判结果

法院一审认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条规定，本案双方诉争为吴培良是否享有铃兰公司10%的股权，属股东权利义务等事项的范围，故应适用铃兰公司登记地即新加坡法律审理。法院就新加坡公司法的查明问题咨询专家意见，由华东政法大学提供了新加坡公司法的相关内容，双方均对此认可。法院一审认为根据《新加坡公司法》的规定，新加坡法律允许他人代持公司股权。虽然新加坡公司法规定股权代持协议应以备注形式附于公司章程之后，但该条款仅为倡导性规范，而非强制性规范，更非股权代持协议的生效要件，并不能仅凭该形式要求未满足即认定股权代持协议不存在或未生效。因而，法院认定吴培良享有铃兰公司10%的股权，判决盛浩民、沈燕琴承担相应的股权转让款支付义务。盛浩民、沈燕琴不服提出上诉，江苏省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

典型意义

新加坡为英美法系国家，法律渊源包含成文法典、判例法、衡平法，法律查明难度较大。本案通过向华东政法大学咨询专家意见，查明《新加坡公司法》的成文法规范，在审理中通过对法条文义的解读得出新加坡法律允许他人代持公司股权的结论；同时对该法条载明的代持协议形式要件的效力问题，回归法条本身探查立法本意，从而作出该条款系倡导性规范，而非强制性规范的认定，为代持关系的认定奠定法律基础。本案的事实查明扎实，法律认定准确，通过文义对立法本意进行阐明，实现了案件审理中域外法的“查”与“明”。

案例二

适用香港判例裁判规则

界定“揭开公司面纱”适用范围

——无锡雅仕维地铁传媒有限公司与牵趣进出口有限公司、上海牵趣网络科技有限公司广告合同纠纷案

基本案情

原告无锡雅仕维地铁传媒有限公司（以下简称雅仕维公司）与被告上海牵趣网络科技有限公司（以下简称上海牵趣公司）进行广告业务洽谈，后上海牵趣公司提出由牵趣进出口有限公司（以下简称香港牵趣公司）与雅仕维公司签订相关广告合同及协议，并提供说明称香港牵趣公司隶属于上海牵趣公司。合同签订后，雅仕维公司履行合同义务，但香港牵趣公司未按约付款，雅仕维公司遂诉至法院，要求上海牵趣公司与香港牵趣公司承担连带还款责任，理由是香港牵趣公司与上海牵趣公司存在人员、业务及财务混同，且上海牵趣公司为香港牵趣公司唯一股东。雅仕维公司举证其与香港牵趣公司于2015年签订过广告发布合同并已履行完毕的事实。上海牵趣公司抗辩称，根据合同相对性原则其不承担合同付款责任；香港牵趣公司不存在滥用法人独立地位和股东有限责任逃避债务情形，请求驳回雅仕维公司的诉请。

裁判结果

法院一审认为，关于上海牵趣公司是否滥用香港牵趣公司法人人格的争议，实质上属于香港牵趣公司是否具有法人民事权利能力及民事行为能力方面的认定，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条规定，对于该争议的审理，应当适用香港牵趣公司登记地，即中华人民共和国香港特别行政区的法律。本案就香港特别行政区公司法的查明向华东政法大学出具了专家意见咨询函，并收到华东政法大学提供的香港中文大学法学院教授的专家意见。法院认为，根据专家意见及其援引的六个法院判例，在香港特别行政区判例法中，原告必须证明被告设立子公司的目的在于欺诈、隐瞒、逃避债务的，被告才能承担责任。同时，香港特别行政区法院判例认定设立子公司使其承担债务本身是合法的，不能因为当事人在公司集团结构上的安排而揭开公司面纱。在香港特别行政区法律框架下，一人公司财产独立性的问题实质就是财产混同问题。本案中，两公司在人员、业务方面存在着一定的重合之处，但雅仕维公司举证恰可以证明上海牵趣公司作为香港牵趣公司的股东，安排香港牵趣公司作为签约主体并无恶意不履行债务的企图，雅仕维公司也无证据证明两被告存在财产混同。法院因此判令香港牵趣公司承担相应付款责任，而驳回了雅仕维公司要求上海牵趣公司承担连带责任的诉请。判决作出后，双方均未上诉，本案一审生效。

典型意义

香港特别行政区法律属于英美法系，判例法占据重要地位。因司法制度不同，内地法院的法官在查明及适用判例过程中，面临定位、理解及适用判例的多重挑战。从查明的多个判例中归纳出相关裁判规则，是确保域外法适用准确性的前提，也是案件最终得到依法公正审理的基石。本案为准确查明判例法内容，法院向华东政法大学出具了专家意见咨询函；并根据香港专家意见所援引6个判例的裁判重点，综合得出在香港特别行政区判例法中认定“滥用法人人格”行为的构成要件，从而驳回了雅仕维公司要求“揭开公司面纱”、由上海牵趣公司承担连带责任的诉请，为同类案件的审理提供了有益借鉴。

案例三

依职权查明澳大利亚法律

确定股东代表诉讼资格

——梅山海与林小宁、陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍损害公司利益责任纠纷案

基本案情

梅山海系澳大利亚大洋诚信公司（Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd）的股东。林小宁在2010年9月15日至2014年7月25日间担任该公司唯一董事，陶锡松帮助林小宁打理公司事务。2013年5月1日，大洋诚信公司将“Alexandra Gardens”业务转让给了案外公司。林小宁、陶锡松将转让款中的人民币1880595元划入陶锡峰国内账户，未返还公司。孙素萍系陶锡峰配偶。梅山海认为林小宁、陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍损害了大洋诚信公司利益，请求判令林小宁返还大洋诚信公司收益款并支付利息，陶锡松、陶锡峰、孙素萍承担共同还款责任。

裁判结果

法院认为，本案为梅山海以大洋诚信公司股东身份提起的损害公司利益责任纠纷，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条规定，应适用大洋诚信公司登记地法律即澳大利亚联邦法律审理。在法院限期内，双方均未提供澳大利亚公司法相关的成文法及判例，法官通过“中华人民共和国商务部全球法律网”，检索得到澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》（Corporations Act 2001），经双方质证无异议，作为本案适用的法律。《2001年公司法》第236条、第237条分别规定了股东代表诉讼的情形及前置程序要件，原告梅山海在提起本案诉讼时必须证明其已满足相应的规定。与《中华人民共和国公司法》确立的股东代表诉讼制度不同的是，澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》规定股东代表诉讼要求股东以公司名义提起诉讼。因此，本案原告梅山海的起诉不符合澳大利亚联邦《2001年公司法》的主体要求，也未能证明其履行了前置程序，故法院裁定驳回了原告梅山海的起诉。本案一审生效。

典型意义

本案在2020年审结，彼时关于域外法的查明的一般做法是以当事人提供为主；最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》若干问题的解释（一）第十五条亦规定了当事人无正当理由未提供域外法将视为不能查明。本院亦相应发出了限期举证通知书，但未获回应。实践中，不乏当事人受制于成本、风险、诉讼/代理能力等多重因素，将其自身查明义务转嫁于法院的情况。此时，寻找官方、正式、及时更新的查询路径是法院查明域外法的先决条件。随着各类法律法规网站/数据库的建设，法院通过互联网进行大数据检索，从而实现对域外法内容的查明、复验，已经越来越成为涉外商事案件审理中的常态。本案依职权查明域外法的能动作法，亦在《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》中得到了确认，根据纪要21条规定，当7种方式均无法查明时，法院可以采用其他合理途径进行查明。互联网时代下，大数据检索的查明方式既能有效减轻当事人在法律查明方面的成本，又给法官依职权查明域外法提供了可能性，弥补了现有查明方式的不便，拓展了域外法查明的现实有效途径。

案例四

互联网核查印尼民法典

维护未到庭当事人合法权益

——江苏脒诺甫纳米材料有限公司与PT.DRE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

基本案情

江苏脒诺甫纳米材料有限公司（以下简称脒诺甫公司）与PT.DRERESOURCES INTERNATIONAL（以下简称DRI公司）签订锆英砂买卖合同一份，购买锆英砂，并约定了货物价格及付款方式等。合同签订后，脒诺甫公司支付给DRI公司174000美元，在DRI公司告知脒诺甫公司货物已经在货场后，脒诺甫公司又支付了174000美元，DRI公司却迟迟未交付任何货物，经脒诺甫公司多次催讨，DRI公司拒不交货。脒诺甫公司故诉至法院，请求解除上述买卖合同、DRI公司返还货款348000美元等。被告DRI公司经外交途径及公告送达，未到庭参加诉讼。

裁判结果

本案中，脒诺甫公司请求适用中华人民共和国法律进行审理。法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四十一条规定的最密切联系原则，本案合同涉及标的物属于印度尼西亚境内的相关矿产，出卖方DRI公司的营业地及合同签订地均在印度尼西亚，故印度尼西亚为本案合同的最密切联系地，从而认定本案应当适用印尼的法律。经法院释明，脒诺甫公司通过联合国难民署网站（www.refworld.org）及德国玛丽·奥斯蒙德数据库（https://mayosmond.com）查找到了《印度尼西亚民法典》相关内容（英文版），请求适用其中第1267条和1480条并提供相应的中文翻译。法院依照其提供的查找方法复验查询内容，确认了《印度尼西亚民法典》的条款内容，完成了本案适用法律的查明，最终依据《印度尼西亚民法典》关于合同无效的规定，判决支持脒诺甫公司的诉讼请求。本案一审生效。

典型意义

涉外商事案件的审理中，缺席审理并不是直接适用本国法的理由，应当在对法律关系进行识别后，根据本国冲突规范确定应当适用的准据法。本案中，在境外被告未到庭的情况下，法院并未直接采纳原告脒诺甫公司要求适用中国法的主张，而是根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的规定确定应适用的域外法，并对脒诺甫公司进行依法释明。法院在当事人查询的基础上以重复操作形式验证当事人提供的域外法内容的真实性，从而在被告缺席的情况下实现对域外法查明内容的认定。本案的域外法查明方式，解决了缺席审判中域外法无法质证的难题，极大提高了案件审判效率，从实体和程序上维护了当事人的合法权益。

案例五

准确查明德国民事诉讼法

确认仲裁条款的效力

——宜兴新威利成稀土有限公司与奥斯兰有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

基本案情

宜兴新威利成稀土有限公司（以下简称新威利成公司）与奥斯兰有限责任公司（以下简称奥斯兰公司）签订《战略供应商协议》，达成稀土产品采购合作。该《战略供应商协议》第18条明确约定了仲裁条款：“18.1由本协议引起的或与本协议有关的所有争议，包括关于本协议的存续、有效性、解释或终止的任何问题，应当按照位于巴黎的国际商会之《国际商会仲裁规则》由三（3）名仲裁员根据上述仲裁规则最终裁决……18.3仲裁地为慕尼黑。对于仲裁规则没有规定的事项，应当适用仲裁地的程序法。”奥斯兰公司由此对新威利成公司的起诉提出异议，认为本案应提交仲裁解决，新威利成公司的起诉应予驳回。

裁判结果

法院认为：根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条规定，当事人可以协议选择仲裁协议适用的法律。当事人没有选择的，适用仲裁机构所在地法律或者仲裁地法律。本案中，双方当事人没有协议选择仲裁协议适用的法律，但约定了仲裁地在德国，故判断涉案仲裁条款的效力应适用德国法律。根据《德国民事诉讼法》第1029条及第1031条的规定，涉案仲裁条款已满足德国法律规定的仲裁协议成立的条件，且无其他证据证明其无效，故法院确认该仲裁条款效力，新威利成公司应当依据双方的仲裁协议向国际商会仲裁院申请在德国慕尼黑进行仲裁。据此，法院裁定驳回新威利成公司的起诉。本案一审生效。

典型意义

本案是无锡法院首次适用外国程序法的成功探索。根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条规定，在当事人未选择仲裁协议适用的法律的情况下，应适用仲裁机构所在地法律或者仲裁地法律。本案明确仲裁地在德国慕尼黑，需要依据德国法律判断仲裁条款效力。奥斯兰公司提供德国仲裁律师的法律意见及《德国民事诉讼法》的相关规定，法院以互联网查询检索形式复验有关《德国民事诉讼法》条款的内容，最终查明《德国民事诉讼法》关于仲裁协议的定义及生效条款，确认了涉案仲裁条款的效力。本案的审理充分体现了法院在主管管辖权审查上的审慎态度，表明了我国法院尊重、支持国际商事仲裁的裁判理念，也是外国法查明方式的积极实践。

案例六

能动查明澳门商法典

依法确认股东公司治理行为效力

——尤爱梅与江苏环海重工有限公司、第三人澳门求精贸易有限公司请求变更公司登记纠纷案

基本案情

求精公司为澳门特别行政区企业，该公司股东为段哲与毕术秀，两者系夫妻关系。环海公司是求精公司全资设立的外商投资企业，其章程规定董事长为公司法定代表人。2016年12月22日，求精公司委派尤爱梅为环海公司法定代表人，2020年5月13日，毕术秀出具股东决定，免去尤爱梅法定代表人职务，改为委派毕术秀担任该职。2020年5月19日，段哲出具股东决定，继续委派尤爱梅担任环海公司法定代表人，并向毕术秀寄发告知函，表示不同意此前毕术秀的股东决定。2020年8月19日，经市场监管部门核准，环海公司的法定代表人变更为毕术秀，该变更登记行为经过行政复议得以维持。尤爱梅认为，毕术秀出具的股东决定属于行政机关管理成员无权作出的行为，因此该行为不对求精公司产生效力，故起诉至法院，请求环海公司协助其办理变更登记手续，将环海公司的法定代表人、董事长由毕术秀变更为尤爱梅。

裁判结果

法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》及相应司法解释的规定，本案涉及公司内部管理人员以公司名义对外实施的行为能否认定为公司行为的法律问题，应当适用公司登记地法律。求精公司为登记设立在澳门特别行政区的企业，故本案应当适用澳门特别行政区法律。根据《澳门商法典》的规定和求精公司的内部章程性规定，求精公司行政管理机关成员可代表公司的意志，有权代表签署所有代表求精公司行为、合约等重要文件，即有权在环海公司经营管理中代表求精公司行使内地法律和公司章程规定的股东权利，包括委派环海公司的法定代表人；从公司以往的治理惯例来看，在环海公司的经营过程中，毕术秀一直代表求精公司签署包括环海公司经营范围变更、章程修订及向环海公司委派法定代表人的相关股东决定，而段哲在本案纠纷发生之前从未作出类似股东决定，可以认定在二人矛盾激化之前，双方已经就环海公司股东代表方面作出安排，即由毕术秀代表求精公司行使股东权利。故2020年5月13日毕术秀出具的股东决定具有法律效力，因此法院一审驳回了尤爱梅的诉讼请求，尤爱梅未提起上诉，本案一审生效。

典型意义

公司内部治理导致的纠纷长久以来一直是公司类案件发生的主要原因，特别是本案求精公司这种“夫妻店”性质的企业，企业的经营决策、公司的对外表意行为极有可能受到作为公司股东及管理者的夫妻之间关系的影响。在“法人权利义务适用登记地法律”这一基本原则之下，只有充分查明公司登记地的法律，并结合公司章程、经营历史、治理惯例等事实，才可能作出正确的裁判。本案依据《澳门商法典》对公司行政管理机关成员权限进行界定，结合公司章程及既往公司治理历史综合认定毕术秀出具的股东决定的法律效力，充分体现了司法在介入公司内部治理问题时能动作为查明法律、保持谦抑尊重自治的原则，是无锡法院积极推进域外法查明和适用的生动实践，是内地与澳门司法规则衔接的精彩展示。

案例七

识别多重法律关系

适用韩国商法解决先决问题

——株式会社TiTi与天天公司、曺宇铉股东知情权纠纷案

基本案情

株式会社TiTi系在韩国登记设立的公司，法定代表人为曺祥铉，其与本案被告之一曺宇铉系兄弟关系。2002年，株式会社TiTi在江苏省无锡市设立天天公司，并持有天天公司全部股权。从2018年4月起，株式会社TiTi通过派员上门、邮寄律师函、发送通知等方式要求行使股东知情权，均遭到天天公司拒绝。株式会社TiTi起诉，请求天天公司提供自2006年8月1日起的全部董事会会议决议、股东会会议记录、财务会计报告、公司会计账簿及原始凭证以供查阅、复制。天天公司辩称，曺祥铉非株式会社TiTi的法定代表人，确认曺祥铉为社长的株式会社TiTi董事会决议无效。

裁判结果

法院一审认为，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条规定，曺祥铉是否有权代表株式会社TiTi提起本案诉讼应适用该公司登记地法律，即韩国法律。韩国商法第389条规定，公司应以董事会的决议选任代表公司的董事。根据株式会社TiTi章程第30条规定，社长是根据董事会的决定，从董事中选任；社长代表本公司。株式会社TiTi的商业登记证载明曺祥铉为代表人，2018年4月17日株式会社TiTi董事会出席人员符合章程规定，董事会决议有效。因此，曺祥铉有权代表株式会社TiTi提起本案诉讼。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》规定，株式会社TiTi行使股东知情权合法有据，判决天天公司提供全部董事会会议决议、股东会会议记录、财务会计报告供株式会社TiTi查阅、复制；提供会计账簿及原始凭证供株式会社TiTi查阅。天天公司不服，提起上诉。江苏省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

典型意义

本案系股东知情权诉讼，存在股东身份确认、知情权范围等多重法律关系，需要分别确定准据法，并适用不同国家的法律。首先要解决株式会社TiTi提起诉讼的代表权问题。因株式会社TiTi是在韩国登记设立的公司，株式会社TiTi的代表权问题应适用韩国法律，根据韩国法律审查相关董事会决议的效力。股东知情权的行使对象天天公司系在中国设立，知情权范围应适用中国法律。本案法律关系定性准确、条理清晰，外国法查明准确，说理详实规范，裁判结果妥当，可为审理同类案件提供借鉴。该案入选江苏省高级人民法院发布的《江苏法院涉外商事海事审判典型案例（2022年）》。

案例八

多维度查明伊朗民法规定

精准界定损害赔偿范围

——贝沙赫尔工业公司（Behshahr Industrial Company）与江阴科玛金属制品有限公司国际破产债权确认纠纷案

基本案情

原告贝沙赫尔工业公司（Behshahr Industrial Company）（以下简称BIC公司）与被告江阴科玛金属制品有限公司（以下简称科玛公司）签署《供货协议》，约定由BIC公司作为买方向科玛公司购买马口铁。《供货协议》对延期交货违约金、损害赔偿责任进行约定，并约定本协议受伊朗法律管辖。后BIC公司向科玛公司订购2单货物，科玛公司收款后未能如期足额发货。科玛公司在本案诉讼前经法院裁定受理破产申请，BIC公司向科玛公司管理人申报债权，但管理人仅对其中部分金额予以确认。BIC公司遂起诉科玛公司，要求法院确认其对未被管理人确认的包含违约金、汇率损失、可得利润损失、资金利息损失、律师费、差旅费、邮费等在内的损失金额享有破产债权。科玛公司管理人抗辩认为，本案应适用中华人民共和国法律进行审理。涉案《供货协议》中有仲裁条款，约定仲裁适用英格兰法律，又约定受伊朗法律管辖，故《供货协议》本身对法律适用存在约定不明的情形；BIC公司放弃仲裁条款并在我国起诉行为应视为其放弃了《供货协议》的仲裁条款及法律适用约定，故本案应适用破产企业所在地法律即中国法律进行审理。BIC公司主张的各项损失均为间接损失，即使法院认定，其性质也应为劣后债权。

裁判结果

法院认为，关于本案的主管问题，因双方均在庭审中明确放弃仲裁条款，故本院对本案享有管辖权。本案存在多重法律关系，应当分别确定适用的法律。对BIC公司债权金额，在《供货协议》已明确规定协议的履行应当受伊朗法管辖的情况下，应适用伊朗法律进行审理；关于债权性质的认定，应根据冲突规范的一般规则“破产债权的法律适用一般适用破产宣告地法”而适用中华人民共和国法律审理。本案中，BIC公司提供了联合国难民事务高级专员公署网站查明的《伊朗民法典》《伊朗民事诉讼法》及伊朗律师事务所出具的法律意见书，法院当庭登录联合国难民事务高级专员难民署网站查询比对BIC公司提交的《伊朗民法典》相应条款；同时，针对本案汇率损失产生原因问题，BIC公司提供商务部国际贸易经济合作研究院等发布的《对外投资合作国别（地区）指南伊朗（2021年版）》予以佐证，法院依据该投资指南中所附网站www.sanarate.ir查询伊朗里亚尔与相应货币的汇率。最终，法院根据《伊朗民法典》法条内容与法律意见书的交叉验证，确认伊朗法律规定下可追偿损害的类别及损害构成要件应为直接损失及确定损失，从而确认了BIC公司关于违约金、汇率损失、律师费及翻译费的主张为其损失，并根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》将其确认为破产债权。判决作出后，双方均未上诉，本案一审生效。

典型意义

本案法律关系复杂，如何查明伊朗法、准确界定损失的金额是本案审理的首要及最关键环节。针对当事人提供的《伊朗民法典》条款，法院以互联网查证形式复验其真实性，并对翻译中的不够规范用语进行调整；对BIC公司主张的核心内容汇率损失，法院以我国商务部发布的投资指南佐证汇率损失成因，适用《伊朗民法典》定性汇率损失为直接损失而非罚款；查证汇率网站确认汇率变动情况，最终确定BIC公司的汇率损失数额。本案的域外法查明过程在途径、方式、复验等方面均有较多创新，有效保护了债权人利益，为同类案件的审理提供了有益借鉴。

案例九

准确适用《纽约公约》

不予承认和执行“超裁”裁项

——Bright Morning Limited与宜兴乐祺纺织集团有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案

基本案情

2005年12月26日，宜兴乐祺纺织集团有限公司（以下简称乐祺集团公司）与Bright Morning Limited（以下简称BM公司）签订《斜纹布合资合同》，合资设立宜兴新乐祺纺织印染有限公司（以下简称新乐祺公司）。2011年11月14日，BM公司针对乐祺集团公司就《斜纹布合资合同》下的争议提交新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁，请求仲裁庭裁决乐祺集团公司向BM公司支付金钱损害赔偿并禁止乐祺集团公司采取任何违反合同的进一步行动等。2015年8月26日，新加坡国际仲裁中心作出最终裁决，裁决内容包括“（1）乐祺集团公司违反了《斜纹布合资合同》；（2）受下文第（4）分段的限制，斜纹布合资合同终止；（3）乐祺集团公司应向BM公司支付3480万美元，作为其违反《斜纹布合资合同》的损害赔偿金；（4）在本裁决作出之日起的14日内，乐祺集团公司应向BM公司支付损害赔偿金3840万美元。当乐祺集团公司全数支付前述金钱损害赔偿，及有书面确认该赔偿已汇入BM公司指定的位于中国以外（除香港外）的银行后，《斜纹布合资合同》应立即终止”及其他内容。BM公司申请执行该仲裁裁决，乐祺集团公司称裁决（1）-（4）的事项均超出双方当事人仲裁条款的范围，申请不予承认与执行。

裁判结果

经层报最高人民法院，法院作出民事裁定，承认和执行新加坡国际仲裁中心2011年第130号仲裁裁决第（1）、（3）、（5）、（6）项，不予承认和执行第（2）、（4）项。无锡市中级人民法院认为最终裁决第（2）、（4）项具有《联合国承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（即《纽约公约》）第五条第一款（丙）项规定的情形，而不能被承认和执行。理由是：首先，股东权利是基于公司法律制度而产生的法定权利，并非约定权利。仲裁庭解决的争议仅限于合资双方围绕合资合同发生的争议，而非能将其管辖延伸至合资公司本身。其次，BM公司与乐祺公司在仲裁中均未提出有关BM公司在合资公司的股权问题。仲裁庭为平衡双方利益，避免BM公司获取所谓“双倍赔偿”，主动干预BM公司在斜纹布合资公司的股东权利，作出裁决第（4）项既超出双方交付仲裁的争议范围，也超出了双方交付仲裁决定的事项范围。因第（2）项与第（4）项裁决内容具有关联性，应当一并不予执行。

典型意义

该案的审理体现了无锡法院支持和监督国际商事仲裁并重的审判思路。在最高法院以“有利于执行”理念履行公约义务的司法政策指引下，法院对《纽约公约》第五条规定的拒绝承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的七项情形多持严格审查态度，不轻易拒绝承认和执行。本案中，国际仲裁庭因其对中国法律的不同理解，将当事人提交仲裁的违约责任问题与股东权利一并考量，做出一方付出巨额金钱赔偿、另一方强制让渡股东权利的裁决。该裁决得到了法院的部分承认和执行，对主动干预被申请人在合资公司的股东权利而做出的两项裁决，认定“超裁”而拒绝承认和执行。本案体现了中国法院不认同仲裁机构的管辖扩张主义，同时对超裁事项的可分性及公共政策例外原则持审慎态度，力争在有利于外国仲裁裁决执行与严守仲裁司法审查标准之间达到平衡。

案例十

优先适用《销售合同公约》

明确验货前无义务支付价款

——三星STS株式会社与无锡鼎辰金属制品有限公司买卖合同纠纷案

基本案情

原告三星STS株式会社（以下简称三星株式会社）与被告无锡鼎辰金属制品有限公司（以下简称鼎辰公司）进行了不锈钢带买卖交易，但鼎辰公司所发货物不符合约定；后双方经友好协商于2017年2月23日签订了和解协议书，三星株式会社已如期处理完不合格货物并书面告知鼎辰公司，但鼎辰公司未履行和解协议，故三星株式会社诉至法院，要求鼎辰公司返还货款等。鼎辰公司抗辩称根据和解协议的约定，鼎辰公司承担的是补货义务，且发货前提是在三星株式会社验收合格，在其同意的情况下鼎辰公司才能发货，至今三星株式会社没有做出验收合格的结论，所以鼎辰公司的发货前提条件尚未成就，请求法院驳回三星株式会社的诉请。

裁判结果

法院认为，涉案合同系营业地在不同国家的当事人之间订立的货物销售合同，中国、韩国均系《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（以下简称《销售合同公约》）缔约国，且双方当事人不排除适用该公约，故本案适用《销售合同公约》进行审理。根据《销售合同公约》第五十八条第三款的规定，买方在未有机会检验货物前，无义务支付价款，除非这种机会与双方当事人议定的交货或支付程序相抵触。双方在和解协议书中约定的履行顺序是三星株式会社先验货、付款，款项付清后鼎辰公司再交货，则在三星株式会社未能进行验收的情况下，其即无义务支付价款。至于三星株式会社未能验收的原因，法院认为，货物验收对于买卖双方当事人而言，既是权利也是义务。鼎辰公司关于三星株式会社拒不验收的抗辩无证据证明，法院不予采信，故法院支持了三星株式会社关于返还货款及支付利息的诉讼请求。本案一审生效。

裁判结果

本案在准确界定涉案合同关系的基础上，优先适用国际条约，在司法中体现了“切实履行国际义务”的现代国际法基本准则。通过对《销售合同公约》的相关条款进行了分析和适用，并主要依据第五十八条“未有机会验货前无义务支付价款”这一规定，法院作出了对外方有利的认定，根据《销售合同公约》第七十四条“可预见规则”、第八十四条第一款的利息规定，支持了三星株式会社关于返还货款及支付利息的诉讼请求。本案的审理，适用了《销售合同公约》的细节规定，对于类似国际货物买卖合同纠纷中履行义务先后顺序的判断，具有示范意义。

Example Cases by Wuxi International Commercial Court on Applications of Laws outside PRC (Chinese and English Editions)

Contents

Case I Identifying and clarifying Singaporean law, confirming the real shareholder status under equity trusteeship.——Wu Peiliang vs. Sheng Haomin, Shen Yanqin the Property Damage Compensation Dispute

Case II Applying Hong Kong Precedents to clarify the boundary of “Piercing the corporate veil”.——Wuxi Yaswei Metro Media Co., Ltd. vs. Qianqu Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shanghai Qianqu Network Technology Co., Ltd. Advertising Contract Dispute

Case III The Judge ascertains the Australian law ex officio and determines the qualification for shareholder representative litigation——Mei Shanhai vs. Lin Xiaoning, Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping the Dispute over Liabilityfor Damages to Company Interests

Case IV Verifying the Indonesian Civil Code online, Vindicating the interest of the default party——Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd. vs. PT. DRE Resource International the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Case V Accurately ascertain the German Civil Procedure Law and confirm the validity ofthe arbitration clause——Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd. vs. OSRAMGMBH the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Case VI Proactively ascertain the Macau Commercial Code to confirm the effectiveness of shareholders' corporate governance actions——You Aimei vs. Jiangsu Huanhai HeavyIndustry Co., Ltd. and the third party Macau Qiujing Trading Co., Ltd. Requestto Change Company Registration Dispute

Case VII Identifying complex legal relationships and applying Korean Commercial Lawto resolve preliminary issues——TiTi Corporation vs. Tiantian Company, ChoWoo-hyun, the Shareholder Right to Information Dispute

Case VIII Accurately ascertain Iranian civil law in multi-dimension and define the scope of damage compensation——Behshahr Industrial Company vs. Jiangyin Komar Metal Products Co., Ltd. The Confirmation of International Bankruptcy ClaimsDispute

Case IX Accurately apply the New York Convention, and reject to recognize or enforce'excessive' arbitration awards——Bright Morning Limited vs. Yixing Leqi Textile Group Co., Ltd. Applying for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award Dispute

Case X Priority Application of the CISG, Clarifying the Absence of Payment Obligation before Inspection of Goods——International Sale of Goods Contract between Samsung STS Corporation and Wuxi Dingchen Metal Products Co., Ltd

Case I

Identifying and clarifying Singaporean law, confirming the real shareholder status under equity trusteeship——Wu Peiliang vs. Sheng Haomin, Shen Yanqin the Property Damage Compensation Dispute

Basic Facts

On 28 December 2009, the Singapore private limited company Linlan Company, adjusted its shareholding structure. The minutes of the meeting stated that “after the adjustment, Sheng Haomin owns 35% of the shares of Linlan Company, and Wu Peiliang owns 10% of the shares”. On 14 August 2010, the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of Linlan Company confirmed that Sheng Haomin and Wu Peiliang had paid the actual amount and financial expenses which accounted for 45% of the capital of Linlan Company, of which Sheng Haomin held 35% and Wu Peiliang held 10%. All shareholders signed to confirm on the minutes of the meeting and the resolution of the shareholders' meeting. The 45% of the shares were all registered under the name of Sheng Haomin. On 1 December 2011, Sheng Haomin transferred these 45% of the shares to an external party, and the board resolution of Linlan Company stated that all the shareholders unanimously agreed to assume joint and several liability for payment. After receiving the proceeds of the share transfer, Sheng Haomin did not pay Wu Peiliang the corresponding portion of the transfer proceeds for its 10% shareholding. Wu Peiliang brought against Sheng and Shen after several unsuccessful demands.

Court Ruling

The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City of Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as “The Court”) held that, according to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of the Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the dispute between the parties was whether Wu Peiliang was entitled to 10% of the shares of Linlan Company, which fell within the scope of matters concerning shareholders' rights and obligations. Therefore, the law of Singapore, where Linlan Company is registered, should be applied. The court sought an expert opinion on the clarification of Singaporean company law, and relevant content of Singapore company law was provided by East China University of Political Science and Law, which was accepted by both parties. The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, it allowed the nominee to hold company shares. Although the Singapore Companies Act stipulates that a shareholding nominee agreement should be attached to the company's articles of association in the form of a note, this clause is only an advocacy norm, not a mandatory one, and certainly not a requirement for the effectiveness of the shareholding nominee agreement. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the shareholding nominee agreement does not exist or has not come into effect simply because this formal requirement is not met. Therefore,the court recognized that Wu Peiliang was entitled to 10% of the shares of Linlan Company and ordered Sheng Haomin and Shen Yanqin to undertake the corresponding payment obligation for the transfer of the shares. Sheng Haomin and Shen Yanqin appealed against the decision, but The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

Typical Significance

Singapore is a common law country with legal sources including statutes, case law, andequity law, making the ascertainment of the law relatively challenging. In this case, by consulting experts from East China University of Political Science and Law, the statutory provisions of the Singapore Companies Act were ascertained. At the same time, as to the validity of the form requirements for the nominee holding agreement set out in the said statutory provision, the original intention of the legislature was explored by going back to the text of the statutory provision itself. This led to the determination that the clause is anadvocacy norm rather than a mandatory one, laying the legal foundation for the recognition of the nominee -holding relationship. The fact findings in this case were sound, and the legal determination was accurate. By clarifying the legislative intent through the meaning of the text, the 'exploration' and'clarification' of foreign law in the trial process was achieved.

Case II

Applying Hong Kong Precedents to clarify the boundary of “Piercing the corporate veil”——Wuxi Yaswei Metro Media Co., Ltd. vs. Qianqu Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shanghai Qianqu Network Technology Co., Ltd. Advertising Contract Dispute

Basic Facts

The plaintiff, Wuxi Yaswei Metro Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yaswei Company), negotiated advertising business with the defendant, Shanghai Qianqu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Qianqu Company). Subsequently, Shanghai Qianqu Company proposed that Qianqu Import& Export Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong Qianqu Company)sign the relevant advertising contracts and agreements with Yaswei Company, and provided an explanation that Hong Kong Qianqu Company was affiliated with Shanghai Qianqu Company. After the contract was signed, Yaswei Company fulfilled its contractual obligations, but Hong Kong Qianqu Company failed to make the payment as agreed. Yaswei Company then sued in court, demanding that ShanghaiQianqu Company and Hong Kong Qianqu Company bear joint and several repayment responsibilities. The reason is that there is a confusion of personnel,business, and finance between Hong Kong Qianqu Company and Shanghai Qianqu Company, and that Shanghai Qianqu Company is the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Qianqu Company. During the trial, Yaswei Company provided evidence that it had signed an advertising contract with Hong Kong Qianqu Company in 2015, which had been fulfilled already. Shanghai Qianqu Company argued that according to the principle of relativity of the contract, it should not bear the responsibility for payment of the contract; there was no abuse of the independent status of the corporation and the limited liability of the shareholder by Hong Kong Qianqu Company to evade debts, and requested to dismiss Yaswei Company's claims.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, the dispute over whether Shanghai Qianqu Company had abused the corporate personality of Hong Kong Qianqu Company essentially pertained to the determination of whether Hong Kong Qianqu Company had civil rights and capacity for civil conduct as a legal person. According to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the trial of this dispute should apply the law of the place where Hong Kong Qianqu Company is registered, namely, the law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.The Court consulted East China University of Political Science and Law to clarify the company law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. A professor from the Faculty of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong provided an expert opinion on the matter. The court believed that, according to the expert opinion and the six court cases cited therein, under the case law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the plaintiff must prove that the purpose of the defendant by establishing a subsidiary was to defraud, conceal,or evade debts, and only in that case can the defendant be held liable.Additionally, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region case law has held that itis lawful to establish a subsidiary for the purpose of incurring debt and thatthe corporate veil cannot be pierced merely because of the arrangements of theparties in the group structure. Under the legal framework of the HKSAR, theissue of the independence of ownership of a one-person company essentially concerns the commingling of assets. In this case, there was some overlap between the two companies in terms of personnel and business, but Yaswei Company's evidence could precisely prove that Shanghai Qianqu Company, as a shareholder of Hong Kong Qianqu Company, arranged for Hong Kong Qianqu Company to be the contracting party without any malicious intent not to fulfill the debts. Yaswei Company also had no evidence to prove that the two defendants had commingled assets. Therefore, the court ruled that Hong Kong Qianqu Company should bear the corresponding payment responsibility, and rejected Yaswei Company's claim for Shanghai Qianqu Company to bear joint and several liability. Neither party appealed the judgment and it became final.

Typical Significance

The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region belongs to the Anglo-American legal system, where case law occupies a significant position. Due to the differences in legal systems, judges in mainland courts face multiple challenges in identifying, understanding, and applying case law. Inferring relevant adjudication rules from multiple identified cases is a prerequisite for ensuring the accuracy of the application of foreign law and is also the cornerstone for the lawful and fair trial of cases. To accurately ascertain the content of case law, the court issued an expert opinion consultation letter to East China University of Political Science and Law, and based on the key points of judgment in the six cases cited by the Hong Kong expert opinions, it synthesized the constitutive elements for the act of "abuse of corporate personality" recognized in the precedents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Consequently, the court rejected Yaswei Company's request to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold Shanghai Qianqu Company jointly liable, providing useful references for the trial of similar cases.

Case III

The Judge ascertains the Australian law ex officio and determines the qualification for shareholder representative litigation——Mei Shanhai vs. Lin Xiaoning, Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping the Dispute over Liability for Damages to Company Interests

Basic Facts

Mei Shanhai is a shareholder of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd., which is an Australian company. Lin Xiaoning served as the sole director of the company from September 15, 2010, to July 25, 2014, with Tao Xisong assisting Lin in managing the company's affairs. On May 1, 2013, Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd. transferred its'Alexandra Gardens' business to an external company. Lin Xiaoning and Tao Xisong then transferred RMB 1,880,595 to Tao Xi Feng's domestic account, which was not returned to the company. Sun Suping is the spouse of Tao Xi Feng. Mei Shanhai believes that Lin Xiaoning, Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping have harmed the interests of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd and requests the court to order Lin Xiaoning to return the company's profits and pay interest, with Tao Xisong, Tao Xi Feng, and Sun Suping bearing joint repayment responsibility.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, this case was a dispute over liability for damages to the company's interests filed by Mei Shanhai as a shareholder of Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd. According to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, lex domicilii,namely the Law of the Common wealth of Australia where Ocean Sincere Pty Ltd is registered, should be applied. Within the time limit set by the court, neither party provided relevant statutes or case law from Australian company law. The judge obtained the Common wealth of Australia's “Corporations Act 2001” through the “Global Legal Network” of the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republicof China. After verification by both parties and without objection, it was applied to this case. Sections 236 and 237 of the “Corporations Act 2001”respectively stipulate the circumstances and procedural requirements for shareholder representative litigation. The plaintiff, Mei Shanhai, must prove that he has met the corresponding provisions when initiating the lawsuit. Unlike the shareholder representative litigation system established by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the “Corporations Act 2001” of the Common wealth of Australia requires that the shareholder initiates the lawsuit in the name of the company. Therefore, the claim filed by the plaintiff Mei Shanhai did not satisfy the subject matter requirement of the "Corporations Act 2001"of the Common wealth of Australia, nor did it prove that it satisfied the procedural requirements; therefore, the court dismissed the claim filed by the plaintiff Mei Shanhai. The judgment was effective since Mei Shanhai didn’t appeal.

Typical Significance

This case was concluded in 2020, when the general practice for ascertaining foreign law primarily relied on the submissions by the parties involved. Article 15 of the “Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations” also stipulates that if the parties fail to provide foreign law without reasonable cause shall be deemed as theinability to ascertain. The court accordingly issued a notice within aspecified time limit, but there was no response. In practice, it is common for parties to shift their obligation to ascertain the law onto the court due to multiple factors such as cost, risk, and litigation/representation capabilities. At this point, finding an official, formal, and timely updated query path is a prerequisite for the court to ascertain foreign law. With the construction of various legal websites/databases, it has become increasingly commom for courts to conduct big data searches on the Internet to ascertain and verify the content of foreign law in the trial of foreign-related commercial cases. The proactive approach of this case in ascertaining foreign law ex officio was confirmed in the “Summary of the National Conference on Trial Work of Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Cases by Courts.” According to Item 21 of the summary, when the seven methods all fail to ascertain the law, the court may use other reasonable means to do so. In the Internet era, the method of bigdata search not only effectively reduces the cost for parties in ascertaining the law but also provides the possibility for judges to ascertain foreign law ex officio, making up for the inconvenience of existing methods and expanding practical and effective approaches for ascertaining foreign law.

Case IV

Verifying the Indonesian Civil Code online, Vindicating the interest of the default party——Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd.vs. PT. DRE Resource International the International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Basic Facts

Jiangsu Minonop Nano Material Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as"Minonop") entered into a contract with PT. DRE Resource International (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") for the purchase of zircon sand, agreeing on the price of the goods and payment methods, etc. After signing the contract, Minonop paid DRI $174,000. Following DRI's notification that the goods were at the warehouse, Minonop made an additional payment of $174,000. However, DRI didn’t deliver any goods despite Minonop's repeated demands. Consequently, Minonop filed a lawsuit in court, seeking to dissolve the sales contract and requesting DRI to return the payment of $348,000, etc.DRI did not appear in court after being served through diplomatic methods andpublic announcement.

Court Ruling

In this case, Minonop requested to apply the laws of the People's Republic of China.The Court held that, according to the doctrine of the most significant relationship stipulated in Article 41 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, the subject matter of the contract, which involved minerals, was located within the territory of Indonesia, and the business premises and contract signing place of the seller DRI were both in Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesian law should beapplied. After the court's clarification, Minonop found the "Indonesian Civil Code" (in English) through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees website (www.refworld.org) and the German Marie Osmond database (https://mayosmond.com), requesting the application of Articles 1267 and 1480, and provided the corresponding Chinese translations. The court verified the content of the"Indonesian Civil Code" using the search method provided by Minonop,confirmed the provisions of the code, and completed the identification of the applicable law for the case. Ultimately, based on the provisions of the"Indonesian Civil Code" regarding the invalidity of contracts, the court ruled in favor of Minonop's claims. The judgment became final in the first instance.

Typical Significance

In the trial of foreign-related commercial cases, the absence of a party does not justify the direct application of domestic law. Instead, the applicable laws hould be determined by the lex fori. In this case, despite the absence of the overseas defendant, the court did not directly adopt Minonop's request to apply Chinese law. Instead, it determined the foreign law to be applied according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations and clarified this to Minonop according to the law. The court verified the authenticity of the foreign law provided by the party based on the search, thus recognizing the content of the foreign law in the absence of the defendant. The method of ascertaining foreign law in this case solved the difficulty of questioning the foreign law in absenttrials, greatly improved the efficiency of trials and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the parties both substantively and procedurally.

Case V

Accurately ascertain the German Civil Procedure Law and confirm the validity of the arbitration clause——Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd.vs. OSRAM GMBH International Sale of Goods Contract Dispute

Basic Facts

Yixing New Will Reach Rare Earth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "New WillReach Company") and OSRAM GMBH (hereinafter referred to as"OSRAM") signed a "Strategic Supplier Agreement,"reaching cooperation on the procurement of rare earth products. Article 18 of the"Strategic Supplier Agreement" clearly stipulates the arbitrationclause: "18.1 All disputes arising from or related to this agreement,including any issues regarding the existence, validity, interpretation, ortermination of this agreement, shall be finally settled by three (3)arbitrators according to the 'International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules' of the International Chamber of Commerce located in Paris... 18.3 The place of arbitration is Munich. For matters not provided for in the arbitration rules, the procedural law of the place of arbitration shall apply." Based on this, OSRAM objected to the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company, arguing that the case should be submitted to arbitration and that the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company should be dismissed.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, parties may agree to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.If the parties have not chosen, the law of the seat of the arbitral institution or the law of the place of arbitration applies. In this case, the parties did not agree to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, but it was stipulated that the seat of arbitration is in Germany. Therefore, the effectiveness of the arbitration clause involved should be governed by Germanlaw. According to Articles 1029 and 1031 of the "German Code of Civil Procedure," the arbitration clause involved is effective, and there is noother evidence proving its invalidity; thus, the court confirmed the effectiveness of the arbitration clause. New Will Reach Company should file to the International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration in Munich, Germany, according to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by New Will Reach Company. The case entered into force at first instance.

Typical Significance

This case is the first successful exploration by the court in applying foreign procedural law. According to Article 18 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations,If the parties have not chosen, the law of the seat of the arbitral institution or the law of the place of arbitration applies. This case clearly identified the seat of arbitration in Munich, Germany, requiring the judgement of the effectiveness of the arbitration clause based on German law. OSRAM provided legal opinions from German arbitration lawyers and relevant provisions of the "German Code of Civil Procedure." The court verified the content of the relevant provisions of the "German Code of Civil Procedure" through the Internet and ultimately ascertained the definition and effective provisions of the arbitration agreement in the "German Code of Civil Procedure,"confirming the effectiveness of the arbitration clause involved. This trial reflects the cautious attitude of the court in the review of jurisdictional authority,demonstrates the Chinese courts' respect and support for international commercial arbitration, and is also a positive practice in the method of ascertaining foreign law. The judgment of this case was selected as one of the Foreign-related Typical Cases (2018-2021) issued by The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province.

Case VI

Proactively ascertain the Macau Commercial Code to confirm the effectiveness of shareholders' corporate governance actions——You Aimei vs. Jiangsu Huanhai Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and the third party Macau Qiujing Trading Co., Ltd. Requestto Change Company Registration Dispute

Basic Facts

Qiujing Company, a business entity registered in the Macau Special Administrative Region,has shareholders Duan Zhe and Bi Shuxiu, who are married. Huanhai Company, awholly foreign-owned enterprise established by Qiujing Company, has its articles of association stating that the chairman is the legal representative of the company. On December 22, 2016, Qiujing Company appointed You Aimei as the legal representative of Huanhai Company. On May 13, 2020, Bi Shuxiu issueda shareholder resolution to relieve You Aimei of her duties as the legal representative, appointing Bi Shuxiu instead. On May 19, 2020, Duan Zhe issueda shareholder resolution continuing to appoint You Aimei as the legal representative of Huanhai Company and sent a notification letter to Bi Shuxiu,expressing disagreement with Bi Shuxiu's previous shareholder decision. On August 19, 2020, with the approval of the Market Supervision Department, the legal representative of Huanhai Company was officially changed to Bi Shuxiu, and this change was upheld after an administrative appeal. You Aimei believed that the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu was an unauthorized act by the administrative management members and thus had no effect on Qiujing Company;hence, she filed a lawsuit in court, requesting Huanhai Company to assist herin handling the change registration procedures to revert the position of the legal representative and chairman from Bi Shuxiu back to You Aimei.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to the provisions of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations and corresponding judicial interpretations, the legal issue involved in this case is whether the actions taken by the internal management personnel on behalf of the company can be recognized as the company's acts, which should be governed by the law of the place where the company is registered. Since Qiujing Company is registered in the Macau Special Administrative Region, the laws of the Macau Special Administrative Region should be applied. According to the provisions of the "Macau Commercial Code" and the association of Qiujing Company, the members of Qiujing Company's administrative department have the authority to represent the will of the company and sign all important documents on behalf of Qiujing Company, including representing shareholder rights in the management of Huanhai Company as stipulated by mainland laws and the company's articles of association, such as appointing the legal representative of Huanhai Company. According to the past practices of the company, Bi Shuxiu has always represented Qiujing Company in signing shareholder resolutions related to changes in Huanhai Company's scope of operations, amendments to the articles of association, and the appointment of the legal representative of Huanhai Company. Duan Zhe had never made similar shareholder resolutions before the dispute arose in this case. It can be determined that before the intensification of the conflicts, arrangements had already been made regarding the representation of shareholders in Huanhai Company, namely, that Bi Shuxiu would exercise shareholder rights on behalf of Qiujing Company. Therefore, the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu on May 13, 2020, had legally effected. The court thus dismissed You Aimei's claims in first instance, and You Aimei did not appeal, making the judgment in force.

Typical Significance

Disputes arising from internal corporate governance have long been a major cause of corporation cases, especially in companies like Qiujing Company, which operates as a "spouse-owned business", where business decisions and external representations of the company are likely influenced by the marital relationship of the shareholders and managers. Under the basic principle that"the rights and obligations of legal entities are governed by the laws of the place of registration", a correct judgment can only be made by thoroughly examining the laws of the place of registration in conjunction with the company's articles of association, business history, and management practices. This case defined the authority of the members of the company's administrative management organ based on the "Macau Commercial Code,"and combined with the company's articles of association and past governance history, comprehensively determined the legal effect of the shareholder resolution issued by Bi Shuxiu. It fully reflects the proactive role of the judiciary in clarifying the law and maintaining restraint and respect for autonomy when intervening in internal corporate governance issues. It is a vivid practice of the Wuxi court's active promotion of the ascertainment and application of foreign law, and it is an excellent demonstration of the integration of judicial rules between the Mainland and Macau.

Case VII

Identifying complex legal relationships and applying Korean Commercial Law to resolve preliminary issues——TiTi Corporation vs. Tiantian Company, Cho Woo-hyun, the Shareholder Right to Information Dispute

Basic Facts

TiTi Corporation is a company registered in South Korea, with Cho Sang-hyun as its legal representative. Cho Woo-hyun, one of the defendants in this case, is the brother of Cho Sang-hyun. In 2002, TiTi Corporation established the Tiantian Company in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, and held all of its shares. Since April 2018, TiTi Corporation has demanded to exercise the shareholder's right by personal delivery, sending demand letters or notifications, but all were rejected by Tiantian Company. TiTi Corporation filed a lawsuit demanding that Tiantian Company provide all board of directors' meeting resolutions, shareholders' meeting minutes, financial statements, company accounting books,and original vouchers from August 1, 2006, for inspection and copying. Tiantian Company argued that Cho Sang-hyun was not the legal representative of TiTi Corporation, and that the board resolution confirming Cho Sang-hyun as the president of TiTi Corporation was invalid.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, according to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations, whether Cho Sang-hyun has the right to file this lawsuit on behalf of TiTi Corporation should be governed by lex domicilii, namely South Korean law where the company is registered. According to Article 389 of the South Korean Commercial Law, a company shall appoint directors to represent the company by resolution of the board of directors. According to Article 30 of the TiTi Corporation's articles of association, the president is appointed from all the directors based on the decision of the board; the president represents the company. The business registration certificate of TiTi Corporation lists Cho Sang-hyun as the representative, and the attendees of the board meeting on April 17, 2018,complied with the provisions of the articles of association, making the board resolution valid. Therefore, Cho Sang-hyun has the right to file the lawsuit on behalf of TiTi Corporation. According to the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, TiTi Corporation's exercise of the shareholder's right to know is legal and well-founded. The court ordered Tiantian Company to provide all board of directors' meeting resolutions, shareholders' meeting records, and financial statements for TiTi Corporation to inspect and copy, and to allow the inspection of accounting books and original vouchers. Tiantian Company appealed. The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

Typical Significance

This case is about the shareholder’s right of inspection involving multiple legal relationships such as confirmation of shareholder status and the scope of the right to information, requiring the determination of applicable law for each issue and the application of laws from different countries. The primary issue to be resolved is the representative authority of TiTi Corporation to file the lawsuit. Since TiTi Corporation is registered in South Korea, the issue of its representative authority should be governed by South Korean law, and the validity of the relevant board resolutions should be examined according to South Korean law. As Tiantian Company, the object of the exercise of the shareholder's right to information is established in China, the scope of the shareholder's right to information should be governed by Chinese law. The caseh as been accurately characterized with clear logic, precise ascertainment of foreign law, detailed and standard reasoning, and an appropriate judgment result,which can serve as a reference for adjudicating similar cases. The judgment of this case was selected as one of the Foreign-related Typical Cases (2022) issued by The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province.

Case VIII

Accurately ascertain Iranian civil law in multi-dimension and define the scope of damage compensation——Behshahr Industrial Company vs. Jiangyin Komar Metal Products Co., Ltd. The Confirmation of International Bankruptcy Claims Dispute

Basic Facts

The plaintiff, Behshahr Industrial Company (hereinafter referred to as BIC), signeda "Supply Agreement" with the defendant, Jiangyin Komar Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Komar), agreeing that BIC would purchase tinplate from Komar. The "Supply Agreement" stipulated provisions for late delivery penalties, liability for damages, and stated that the agreement was governed by Iranian law. Subsequently, BIC ordered two batches of goods from Komar, but after receiving payment, Komar failed todeliver the goods in full and on time. Before the litigation in this case, the court had ruled to accept Komar's bankruptcy application, and BIC declared its claim of damages to the bankruptcy administrator of Komar, but the administrator only confirmed part of the amounts. BIC then sued Komar, asking the court to confirm its claim for the damages not recognized by the administrator, including penalties for delayed delivery, exchange rate losses, profit loss, interest on funds, attorney fees, travel expenses, postage, etc. The bankruptcy administrator of Komar argued that the case should be tried under the laws of the People's Republic of China. The "Supply Agreement" involved contained an arbitration clause, stipulating that arbitration woul dapply English law, while also stating it was governed by Iranian law; therefore, the "Supply Agreement" itself had ambiguous provisions regarding the applicable law. BIC's act of giving up the arbitration clause and suing in the Chinese court should be regarded as its waiver of the arbitration clause and the legal application provisions of the "Supply Agreement", so the case should be tried under the laws of China, where the bankrupt enterprise is located. All the losses claimed by BIC are indirect losses, and even if the court recognized so, their nature should be considered as inferior claims.

Court Ruling

The Court held that, regarding the jurisdiction over this case, since both parties explicitly waived the arbitration clause during the trial, the court had jurisdiction over this case. There are multiple legal relationships in this case, and the applicable laws should be determined separately. Regarding the amount of BIC's creditor's rights, under the condition that the "Supply Agreement" clearly stipulates that the performance of the agreement shouldbe governed by Iranian law, Iranian law should be applied for the trial; as for the determination of the nature of the creditor's rights, it should be inaccordance with the general rule of conflict norms "the law applicable to bankruptcy creditors' rights generally applies the law of the place where bankruptcy is declared," and thus the law of the People's Republic of China should be applied for the trial. In this case, BIC provided the "Iranian Civil Code" and "Iranian Civil Procedure Law" identified on the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as alegal opinion issued by an Iranian law firm. The court logged onto the website of the UNHCR in court to verify the relevant provisions of the "Iranian Civil Code" submitted by BIC; at the same time, regarding the issue of the cause of exchange rate loss in this case, BIC provided the "Country(Region) Guide for Foreign Investment Cooperation - Iran (2021 Edition)"published by the Ministry of Commerce's Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation for evidence. The court verified the exchange rate between the Iranian rial and the corresponding currency based on the website www.sanarate.ir attached to the investment guide. Finally, after cross-verification of the contents of the Iranian Civil Code and the legalopinion, the court confirmed that under Iranian law, the types of damages that can be recovered and the elements of damage should be direct loss and certain loss, thereby confirming BIC's claims for liquidated damages, exchange ratelosses, attorney fees, and translation fees as its losses, and according to the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, they were recognized as bankruptcy creditor's rights. Neither party appealed, and the first-instance judgment took effect.

Typical Significance

The legal relationships in this case are complex. How to identify Iranian law and accurately definethe amounts of damages are the primary and most critical aspects of the trial.In response to the provisions of the "Iranian Civil Code" provided by BIC, the court verified their authenticity through Internet research and adjusted any non-standard terminology in the translations. Regarding the coreclaim of BIC, which is the exchange rate loss, the court corroborated the cause of the exchange rate loss with the investment guide issued by our Ministry of Commerce, applying the "Iranian Civil Code" to characterize the exchange rate loss as a direct loss rather than a penalty. The court confirmed the exchange rate fluctuations by verifying the exchange rate website,ultimately determining the amount of BIC's exchange rate loss. There are many innovations in the process of ascertaining foreign law in this case in terms of approach and verification, which has effectively protected the interests of the creditor and provided valuable references for the trial of similar cases.

Case IX

Accurately apply the New York Convention, and reject to recognize or enforce 'excessive'arbitration awards——Bright Morning Limited vs. Yixing Leqi Textile Group Co., Ltd. Applying for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award Dispute

Basic Facts

On December 26, 2005, Yixing Leqi Textile Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred toas Leqi Group) and Bright Morning Limited (hereinafter referred to as BM Company) signed a 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract' to establish the Yixing Xinleqi Textile and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinleqi Company). On November 14, 2011, BM Company initiated arbitration against Leqi Group at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) regarding disputes under the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract', seeking a ruling that Leqi Group pay monetary damages to BM Company and prohibit Leqi Group from taking any further actions in breach of the contract. On August 26, 2015, SIAC issued a final award which included: (1) Leqi Group had breached the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract'; (2) subject to the limitations of sub-paragraph(4), the Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract was terminated; (3) Leqi Group should pay BM Company $34.8 million as damages for breach of the 'Twill FabricJoint Venture Contract'; (4) within 14 days from the date of the award, Leqi Group should pay BM Company $38.4 million in damages. Upon full payment of the said damages by Leqi Group, and upon written confirmation that such compensation has been transferred to a bank designated by BM Company outside of China (excluding Hong Kong), the 'Twill Fabric Joint Venture Contract' shall be immediately terminated," among other contents. BM Company applied for enforcement of the arbitral award, while Leqi Group claimed that matters (1) to(4) of the award exceeded the scope of the arbitration clause agreed upon by both parties and applied for non-recognition and non-enforcement.

Court Ruling

After being reported up to the Supreme People's Court of People's Republic of China,The Court made a civil ruling recognizing and enforcing items (1), (3), (5),and (6) of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's 2011 No. 130 arbitral award, and rejecting to recognize or enforce items (2) and (4). The Court held that items (2) and (4) of the final award fell under the circumstances provided by Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention (i.e. theUnited Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), which precluded their recognition and enforcement. The reasons were:Firstly, shareholder rights are statutory rights arising from the company’s legal system, not contractual rights. The dispute resolved by the arbitral tribunal was limited to the issues arising from the joint venture contract between the two parties, and the tribunal could not extend its jurisdiction to the joint venture company itself. Secondly, during the arbitration, neither BM Companynor Leqi Company raised any issues regarding BM Company's equity in the joint venture. To balance the interests of both parties and prevent BM Company from obtaining so-called 'double compensation', the arbitral tribunal intervened onits own in BM Company's shareholder rights in the twill fabric joint venture company. Item (4) of the award exceeded both the scope of the dispute submitted to arbitration and the matters decided upon by the submission to arbitration.Since items (2) and (4) of the award were interrelated, they should be rejected together.

Typical Significance

This case reflects the Wuxi court's balancing attitude toward international commercial arbitration , which is both supportive and supervisory. Guided bythe Supreme Court's judicial policy to fulfill Convention obligations with a'pro-enforcement' philosophy, the court adopts a strict scrutiny attitude towards the seven circumstances provided in Article V of the New York Convention that may lead to the refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and does not readily deny recognition or enforcement. In this case, due to the international arbitral tribunal's different interpretation of Chinese law, it considered both the issue of breach of contract submitted by the parties for arbitration and shareholder rights together, resulting in anaward that required one party to pay substantial monetary compensation and the other party to be forced to relinquish shareholder rights. The award waspartially recognized and enforced by the court, but the two items that involved the arbitral tribunal's proactive intervention into the respondent's shareholder rights in the joint venture company were deemed 'excessive' and thus not recognized or enforced. This case demonstrates that the Chinese courts do not agree with the arbitral institution's expansionism in jurisdiction, while also maintaining a cautious stance on the divisibility of excessive awards and the public policy exception principle, striving to strike a balance between being conducive to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and strictly adhering to judicial review standards of arbitration.

Case X

Priority Application of the CISG, Clarifying the Absence of Payment Obligation before Inspection of Goods——International Sale of Goods Contract between Samsung STS Corporation and Wuxi Dingchen Metal Products Co., Ltd

Basic Facts

The plaintiff, Samsung STS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Samsung Co.,Ltd.'), engaged in a stainless steel strip trading transaction with the defendant, Wuxi Dingchen Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as' Dingchen Company'), but the goods shipped by Dingchen Company did not meet the agreed specifications. Subsequently, after friendly negotiations, both parties signed a settlement agreement on February 23, 2017. Samsung Co., Ltd. had duly processed the non-conforming goods and informed Dingchen Company in writing, but Dingchen Company failed to fulfill the settlement agreement. Therefore, Samsung Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that Dingchen Company return the payment for the goods, etc. Dingchen Company defended itself by stating that according to the settlement agreement, Dingchen Company's obligation was to replace the goods, and the premise of delivery was that Samsung Co., Ltd. had accepted the goods as qualified, and only with its consent could Dingchen Company ship the goods. However, Samsung Co., Ltd. did not complete the acceptance, so Dingcheng company's prerequisites for shipment have not yet been accomplished, and asked the court to reject Samsung's claim.

Court Ruling

The Court held that the contract in question was a goods sales contract conclude d between parties with business locations in different countries, and both Chinaand South Korea are signatories to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter referred to as 'CISG'), with neither party excluding the application of the convention. Therefore, the case was adjudicated under the CISG. According to Article 58(3) of the CISG, the buyer is not obliged to pay the price before having had an opportunity to inspect the goods, unless the circumstances described in the article are inconsistent with the agreed delivery or payment procedures between the parties. The settlement agreement stipulated that Samsung Co., Ltd. should inspect the goods and make payment first, followed by Dingchen Company's delivery after receipt of full payment. Therefore, if Samsung Co., Ltd. did not have the opportunity to inspect the goods, it was not obligated to make payment. As for why Samsung Co., Ltd. could not inspect the goods, the court considered that the inspection of goods is both a right and an obligation of the parties to a sales contract. Dingchen Company's defense that Samsung Co., Ltd. refused to inspect the goods was unsubstantiated by evidence and thus not accepted by the court.Consequently, the court supported Samsung Co., Ltd.'s claims for the return of the payment for the goods and the payment of interest. The judgment of the first instance took effect.

Typical Significance

In this case, based on the accurate definition of the contractual relationship involved, priority was given to the application of international treaties, reflecting the modern basic principle of 'faithful fulfillment of international obligations' in the judiciary. By analyzing and applying the relevant clauses of the 'United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods' (CISG), and primarily relying on Article 58 regarding the provision that there is no obligation to pay before having the opportunity to inspect the goods,the court made a determination favorable to the foreign party. In accordance with the 'foreseeability rule' of Article 74 and the interest provisions ofParagraph 1 of Article 84 of the CISG, the court supported Samsung Co., Ltd.'sclaims for the return of the payment for the goods and the payment of interest.The handling of this case, which applied the detailed provisions of the CISG,serves as a model for determining the sequence of performance obligations insimilar international sales contract disputes.

来源/无锡市中级人民法院

发布时间/2024年4月至5月

辑录/广东保典律师事务所

Issued by the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City

Issued from April to May 2024

Extracted by the Attorneys of Talmud & Co.

文章分类：典型案例

分享到：

昵称：

验证码：

地址：广东省广州市越秀区东风东路767号东宝大厦1410 邮编：510030

电话：020-37639786、37639785 网址: http://www.atc86.com

手机版 |本站使用凡科建站搭建 | 管理登录