公司为股东担保相关法律问题研究.docxVIP

Abstract In this paper, the case of loan dispute between Guangcai group corporation and Export-Import Bank of China which I research is a case triggered by connected-guarantee. This case embodies the the differences associated with guarantees between academic and judicial practice activities.From the legal theory and legal requirements in terms，this paper will combine the case of the truth，and use of legal interpretation, comparative law analysis and other methods,to research different views and come to the conclusion. I hope to provide useful help to the similar cases。Full-text is divided into six parts： Part I, Introduction.First,this section introduces the basic situation of the case。And then, refine the focus of the dispute in the cases. There are three focus in this case : the guarantee eligibility , the main to deside guarantee and treatment after guarantee contrast null.Then point out that the purposes of this article and how to write.The purpose of this writing is to analysis of cases controversial issues of this case ,and draw a conclusion， in order to solve this type of case. The second part, Guarantee eligibility.The view was expressed that the Article 60, paragraph 3 of old Company Law limits the ability of the companys external guarantee. Therefore, Company can not provide guarantees for shareholders.。In my opinion, this Article is only for duty of loyalty of right director, manager,restrict on directors, manager of the authority, and have no limit to the ability to guarantee the interests of shareholders. The third part, The main to deside guarantee. Academic and judicial practice activities have argue on if the Board of Directors have the right to guarantee for the shareholders. Some people think that the board have the right, but some suggested that the board has not. Solution of this problem lies in how to understand the old Company Law Article 60, paragraph 3. The author believes that the old Company Law Article 60, paragraph 3, is only to directo