flight of capital contribution allocation concept analysis - of the companies act judicial interpretation (c)（资本外逃的贡献分配的概念分析-公司法司法解释(c)）.docVIP

Flight of capital contribution allocation concept analysis - of the Companies Act judicial interpretation (c) Keywords: allocation / distribution of profits of capital flight is / institutional strengths / / lt;lt; Companies Act judicial interpretation (c gt;gt; Summary: civil law and European Union countries and regions, including China, often using the the distribution narrow concept of the formal sense, refers only to the distribution of profits. Assigned in real significance generalized distribution concept, if a behavior led to the company’s property without consideration flows to the shareholders, shall be allocated from the correct application of capital to maintain the principle, the appropriate balance between shareholders and creditors of a conflict of interest standpoint, or from the point of view of a unified legal norms, saving the cost of legislative and judicial observed distribution concept has real meaning institutional advantages. lt;lt; Companies Act judicial interpretation (in 30 gt;gt; “capital flight”, the same allocation of its economic substance and real meaning. First, as the flight of capital contribution type one false profits allocated - of the problem In February 2011, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated lt;lt; Supreme People’s Court on the application of the People’s Republic of China Company Law Provisions on Several Issues (c gt;gt; (hereafter lt;lt; Companies Act (c gt;gt; judicial interpretation, for trial practice the company set up, funded by the shareholders option confirm company lawsuits referees to develop a more detailed specification. [1] compelling lt;lt; Companies Act judicial interpretation (three gt;gt; specialized regulation once more common and much social criticized the behavior of capital flight. lt;lt; Company Law in China gt;gt; Article 36, 92 withdraws the capital contribution “to withdraw the share capital” concept, but did not specify the type of behavior and the main civil liability. lt; lt;judic