股东优先购买权与善意受让权冲突解决——以上海盛华案为例word论文.docxVIP

AbstractThe current “Company Law” is deficient in detailed regulations both on the exercise period and manner of the right of first refusal, and on issues like what is equal terms. Therefore it may occur in the judicial practice, the shareholders’ right of first refusal conflicts with the shareholders’ right to be admissible. Resolving the conflict involves affirming the exercise condition of shareholders’ right of first refusal. This dissertation selects a case of share transfer torts to discuss the aforementioned issue, which states shareholders request the right of first refusa/search?q=shareamp;keyfrom=E2Ctranslationl to the share /w/in/in /w/a/the /w/company/company.Chapter Introduction, introduce the basic information to the case. This dissertation takes Shanghai Shenghua Company versus NiMing and the like case to discuss and analyze the equal terms and rational exercise period of the right of first refusal, hence to conclude the contention of the case. In the case, Shanghai Shenghua Company believes the latter infringed its shareholders’ right of first refusal in the process of transferring share.Chapter one, shareholders’ right of first Refusal effect on the equity transfer agreement. Whether the priority is how to shareholders as well as its mandatory level of peremptory norms, which directly determines the effectiveness of the equity transfer agreement; effectiveness of the equity transfer agreement is directly related to the protection of the rights of non-bona fide assignee shareholders. However, our law is not to be clearly articulated to shareholders priority in nature, resulting in judicial practice around the court recognized the validity of the equity transfer agreement mixed. In this paper, the shareholders of priority legislative purpose and trends as a starting point for analysis, forced to prove their relative nature, which introduced the principle of equity transfer agreement should be considered as a valid proposition.Chapter two, affirm equal