证券案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
目录
Contents 1. 中国科技证券有限责任公司与常熟市农村商业银行股份有限公司、中国科技国际信托投资有限责任公司特种金融债券兑付纠纷案
China Science and Technology Securities Co., Ltd., v. Changshu Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. and China Science and Technology International Trust and Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over redemption of special financial bonds)
2. 兴业证券股份有限公司杭州清泰街证券营业部与庆泰信托投资有限责任公司证券返还纠纷案
Hangzhou Qingtai Street Securities Sales Department of Industrial Securities Co., Ltd. v. Qingtai Trust and Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over securities return)
3. 上海元盛投资管理有限公司与航天科技财务有限责任公司、闽发证券有限责任公司、闽发证券有限责任公司上海永嘉路营业部证券代理合同纠纷案
Winton Investment Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Aerospace Science &Technology Finance Co., Ltd., Minfa Securities Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Yongjia Road Banking Department of Minfa Securities Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a contract for securities agency)
一、中国科技证券有限责任公司与常熟市农村商业银行股份有限公司、中国科技国际信托投资有限责任公司特种金融债券兑付纠纷案
China Science and Technology Securities Co., Ltd., v. Changshu Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. and China Science and Technology International Trust and Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over redemption of special financial bonds)
【裁判要旨】
《最高人民法院关于审理与企业改制相关的民事纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第六条规定，“企业以其部分财产和相应债务与他人组建新公司，对所转移的债务债权人认可的，由新组建的公司承担民事责任；对所转移的债务未通知债权人或者虽通知债权人，而债权人不予认可的，由原企业承担民事责任。原企业无力偿还债务，债权人就此向新设公司主张债权的，新设公司在所接收的财产范围内与原企业承担连带民事责任。”企业以其部分财产和相应债务与他人组建新公司，应通知债权人并与债权人协商是否由新设立的企业承担原企业的债务。如债权人认可由新公司承担债务，或债权人因原企业无力偿还债务而向新设立的企业主张债权，新设立的企业应对原企业的债务承担清偿责任。
[Judgment Abstract]
Article 6 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Related to Enterprise Restructuring provides that, “Where an enterprise establishes a new company with others based on part of its property and corresponding debts, and the creditors recognize the transferred debts, the newly established company shall assume civil liabilities thereof. Where the creditors haven't been notified of the transferred debts or refuse to recognize such debts in case of notification, the former enterprise shall assume the civil liabilities thereof. Where the former enterprise is unable to repay debts and the creditors claim rights to the newly established company, the newly established company shall assume civil liabilities within the scope of the property that it has received.” Therefore, where an enterprise sets up a new company with others based on part of its property and corresponding debts, it shall notify the creditors and negotiate with them about whether its debts shall be assumed by the newly established enterprise. On the condition that the creditors agree that the new company shall bear the debts, or claim their rights to the newly established enterprise for the former enterprise is unable to repay the debts, the newly established enterprise shall bear the liabilities for the debts of the original enterprise.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2453920
[CLI Code] CLI.C.2453920(EN)
二、兴业证券股份有限公司杭州清泰街证券营业部与庆泰信托投资有限责任公司证券返还纠纷案
Hangzhou Qingtai Street Securities Sales Department of Industrial Securities Co., Ltd. v. Qingtai Trust and Investment Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over securities return)
【裁判摘要】
强行平仓制度是与持仓限制制度和涨跌停板制度等相互配合的风险管理制度。当交易所客户的交易保证金不足并未在规定时间内补足，或当客户的持仓量超出规定的限额，或当客户违规时，交易所为了防止风险进一步扩大，将对其持有的未平仓合约进行强制性平仓处理。依据《中国金融期货交易所风险控制管理办法》的规定，下面五种情况下会出现强行平仓：“（一）会员结算准备金余额小于零，并未能在规定时限内补足的；（二）持仓超出持仓限额标准，并未能在规定时限内平仓的；（三）因违规受到中金所强行平仓处罚的；（四）根据中金所的紧急措施应予强行平仓的；（五）其他应予强行平仓的。”当市场行情仍朝着持仓不利的方向发展时，为避免扩大损失而强制平仓的，不应认定为违法。据此，在委托理财关系中，证券公司对客户持有的股票强制平仓，减少了信托公司的资产，但是防止了更大损失的发生的，不构成违法。
[Judgment Abstract]
The forced liquidation system is a risk management system that cooperates with the position restriction system and the price limit system. When the exchange client's transaction margin is insufficient and not made within the specified time, or when the client's position exceeds the specified limit, or when the client violates the regulations, in order to prevent the risk from further expanding, the Exchange will perform forced liquidation on the open positions they hold. According to the Measures of China Financial Futures Exchange for Risk Control and Management, the Exchange shall force the liquidation of positions under the following five circumstances: 1. The balance of the clearing member's settlement reserve is less than zero and the clearing member fails to make up the deficit within the time limit; 2. the positions held exceed the position limit and fail to close out the positions within the time limit; 3. forced liquidation is imposed by the China Financial Futures Exchange for any regulatory violation; 4. forced liquidation is required as an emergency measure of the China Financial Futures Exchange; 5. any other circumstance under which forced liquidation is deemed necessary. While the market situation is still developing in an unfavourable direction of holding a position, forced liquidation in order to avoid expanding losses should not be considered illegal. Accordingly, in a relationship of entrusted financial management, it is not illegal for securities companies to force the liquidation of customers' stocks, which reduces the assets of customers, but prevents greater losses.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.1776928
[CLI Code] CLI.C.1776928(EN)
三、上海元盛投资管理有限公司与航天科技财务有限责任公司、闽发证券有限责任公司、闽发证券有限责任公司上海永嘉路营业部证券代理合同纠纷案
Winton Investment Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Aerospace Science &Technology Finance Co., Ltd., Minfa Securities Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Yongjia Road Banking Department of Minfa Securities Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a contract for securities agency)
【裁判要旨】
根据《合同法》第五十二条第（三）项的规定，以合法形式掩盖非法目的合同无效。假借委托投资名义进行非法的资金借贷，其行为本质是以合法形式掩盖非法目的，应属于无效合同。作为主合同的委托投资合同无效，基于该委托投资合同的保证合同也应当无效。《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国担保法>若干问题的解释》第八条规定，“主合同无效而导致担保合同无效，担保人无过错的，担保人不承担民事责任；担保人有过错的，担保人承担民事责任的部分，不应超过债务人不能清偿部分的三分之一。”因此，合同双方假借委托投资名义进行非法的资金借贷，保证人如无过错，则不应承担保证责任；如有过错，应在不超过债务人不能清偿部分的三分之一范围内承担保证责任。
[Judgment Abstract]
In accordance with Paragraph 3 of Article 52 of the Contract Law, any contract that assumes a lawful form to conceal an illegitimate purpose shall be null and void. Since illegal lending and borrowing of funds under the guise of entrusted investments is in nature to conceal illegitimate purposes under the guise of legitimate acts, such a contract should be invalid. Where a contract for entrusted investments, as a principal contract, is null and void, the security contract executed based on such contract shall also be invalid. Article 8 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Regarding the Application of Security Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates, “A security provider shall not assume any civil obligation if a security contract is invalid due to the invalidity of the principal contract and the provider is not at fault. If the security provider is at fault, they shall bear no more than one third of the obligation that cannot be fulfilled by the debtor.” Therefore, where both parties to a contract conduct illegal borrowing and lending of funds under the guise of entrusted investments, the security provider shall not bear the guarantee liability if they are not at fault. If the security provider is at fault, they shall bear no more than one third of the obligation that cannot be fulfilled by the debtor.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2453923
[CLI Code] CLI.C.2453923(EN)
-END-
客服 | 法小宝
微信 | pkulaw-kefu
微博 | @北大法宝
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能