【立法动态 Judicial News】

1. 最高法出台外商投资法司法解释及两个意见

1. SPC Releases Interpretations on Foreign Investment Law and Another Two Opinions Documents

背景摘要：日前，最高人民法院发布《关于适用〈中华人民共和国外商投资法〉若干问题的解释》（下称《解释》）、《关于人民法院进一步为“一带一路”建设提供司法服务和保障的意见》和《关于人民法院为中国（上海）自由贸易试验区临港新片区建设提供司法服务和保障的意见》，《解释》自2020年1月1日起施行。

Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Foreign Investment Law of the People's Republic of China (the "Interpretations"), the Opinions on Further Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Belt and Road Initiative by People's Courts and the Opinions on Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Construction of Lingang New Area of the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone by People's Courts. The Interpretations shall take effect from January 1, 2020.

《解释》主要内容如下：第一，对负面清单之外的领域形成的投资合同，当事人以合同未经有关行政主管部门批准、登记为由主张合同无效或者未生效的，法院不予支持；第二，即便是外国投资者投资负面清单规定限制投资的领域，只要在法院作出生效裁判前，当事人采取了必要的补正措施，投资合同仍然可以认定有效；第三，即便在投资合同签订时未符合负面清单的要求，但在生效裁判作出前，负面清单调整放宽了限制性要求的，投资合同也可以认定有效。

Major contents of the Interpretations provide clarifications on three issues. First, if the party to an investment contract signed for any field not included in the negative list claims that such contract is null and void or has never become effective, on the grounds that the contract has not been approved by or registered with the relevant administrative authority, the court shall not uphold such claim. Second, even if a foreign investor makes investment in the field that falls into the category of restricted investment specified in the negative list, the investment contract may still be taken as effective, as long as the party concerned has taken necessary remedial measures before the court renders an effective judgment. And third, even if an investment contract does not comply with the requirements set out in the negative list at the time of execution, it may be taken as effective, if the negative list relaxes the restrictive requirements before an effective judgment is rendered.

2. 最高法修改民事诉讼证据规定 明确电子数据审查判断规则

2. SPC Amends Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure and Clarifies Rules for Examination and Judgment of Electronic Data

背景摘要：近日，最高人民法院发布《关于修改〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的决定》（下称《决定》），自2020年5月1日起施行。

Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Decision on Revising the Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure (the "Decision"), with effect from May 1, 2020.

《决定》共115条，根据《决定》重新公布的《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》共100条。修改后，保留原条文未作修改的11条，对原条文修改41条，新增加条文47条。其主要内容包括：一是完善“书证提出命令”制度，扩展当事人收集证据的途径；二是修改、完善当事人自认规则，更好平衡当事人处分权行使和人民法院发现真实的需要；三是完善当事人、证人具结和鉴定人承诺制度以及当事人、证人虚假陈述和鉴定人虚假鉴定的制裁措施，推动民事诉讼诚实信用原则的落实；四是补充、完善电子数据范围的规定，明确电子数据的审查判断规则。

The Decision introduces 115 revisions, and the Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure re-published by the Decision consist of 100 articles. As a result of such revisions, 11 previous articles are retained without any change, 41 amended and 47 new articles added. The principal changes aim at: 1. improving the mechanism of "order for the submission of documents and certificates", to enable the parties to civil procedure to collect evidence from wider sources; 2. revising and improving the self-admission rule to strike a better balance between the exercise of the parties' disposition and the intention of people's courts to ascertain the facts; 3. improving the parties' and witnesses' affidavit system and the expert witnesses' commitment system, and the sanctions imposed on the parties and witnesses that make false statements and the expert witnesses giving false testimony, to promote the implementation of the good faith principle in civil actions; and 4. supplementing and optimizing the provisions regarding the scope of electronic data and providing clarity on the rules for the examination and judgement of electronic data.

3. 财政部：国有金融企业因增资导致股权变动须报批

3. MOF Orders Reporting of Equity Variation in State-owned Financial Enterprises Caused by Capital Increase for Approval

背景摘要：近日，财政部发布《关于进一步明确国有金融企业增资扩股股权管理有关问题的通知》（下称《通知》），自2019年12月20日起施行。

Background Information：The Ministry of Finance ("MOF") has recently issued the Circular on Further Clarifying Issues Concerning Equity Management Related to the Capital Increase for State-owned Financial Enterprises (the "Circular"), with effect from December 20, 2019.

根据《通知》，国有金融企业本级因增资导致国有股权比例变动的，须依法报同级财政部门履行相关程序；因增资导致国家不再拥有所出资金融企业控股权的，财政部门须报同级人民政府批准。同时，《通知》要求，国有金融企业增资应当符合企业发展战略，做好可行性研究，制定增资方案，明确增资资金金额、用途、投资方应具备的条件、选择标准和遴选方式等。此外，《通知》还明确，被增资企业应对意向投资方进行资格审查，增资引入的投资方应当符合股东资质相关要求。除法律法规另有规定外，增资资金应为真实合法的自有资金，不得使用受托资金、债务资金等非自有资金参与增资，以非货币财产出资的应当依法进行资产评估。

According to the Circular, if the proportion of state-owned equity in a state-owned financial enterprise itself changes as a result of a capital increase, the enterprise must report such change to the finance department at the same level to go through necessary formalities; if the state no longer has the control over the invested financial enterprise as a result of a capital increase, the finance department must report the same to the people's government at the same level for approval. In addition, the Circular requires that a capital increase for a state-owned financial enterprise should conform to the enterprise's development strategy, and the enterprise shall conduct an effective feasibility study and prepare a plan for the capital increase to clearly specify the amount of the capital increase, the use of additional capital, conditions the investors should meet, the criteria of investor selection, and the ways of investor selection. Moreover, the Circular expressly states that the enterprise to receive the additional capital shall examine the eligibility of the prospective investors, and the new investors to be introduced as a result of the capital increase shall fulfill the requirements regarding the qualification of shareholders. Unless otherwise stipulated by laws and regulations, the additional capital provided for the capital increase purpose must be real and legal self-owned funds and cannot be the capital under custody, debt capital and other non-self-owned funds; where capital contribution is made in non-monetary property, the assets appraisal shall be carried out according to law.

【经典案例 Representative Case】

上市公司股权隐名代持行为应认定无效

Entrusted Shareholding Agreement in Listed Companies is Held Invalid

——甲某诉乙某股权转让纠纷案

——the case of a foreign citizen v. a Chinese citizen on dispute over share transfer

1. 裁判要点

1. Key Point

上市公司在证券发行过程中应当如实披露股份权属情况，禁止发行人的股权存在隐名代持情形。隐名代持证券发行人股权的协议因违反公共秩序而无效。股权代持产生的投资收益应根据公平原则，考虑对投资收益的贡献程度以及对投资风险的承受程度等进行合理分配。

A company within IPO procedure should faithfully disclose its shareholding information and any agreement on anonymous entrusted shareholding is forbidden. Agreement on anonymous entrusted shareholding of a securities issuer is invalid because it offends public order.Investment income derived from entrusted shareholding agreement should be reasonably distributed according to the principle of equity and in light of the parties’ contribution to investment income as well as the investment risk sharing arrangement.

2. 基本案情

2. Basic Facts

甲某系某外国公民，乙某系中国公民。双方于2005年签订《股份认购与托管协议》，约定甲某以4.36元/股的价格向乙某购买丙公司股份88万股，并委托乙某管理，乙某根据甲某的指示处分股份，对外则以自己名义行使股东权利，将收益及时全部交付给甲某。丙公司于2017年在上海证券交易所首次公开发行股票并上市，在发行上市过程中，乙某作为股东曾多次出具系争股份清晰未有代持的承诺。2018年，丙公司向全体股东按每10股派发现金红利4元，用资本公积按每10股转增4股的比例转增股本。其后，乙某名下的丙公司股份数量增加至123.2万股。之后，双方对《股份认购与托管协议》的效力和股份收益分配发生纠纷，甲某请求判令乙某交付丙公司股份的收益，或者按照股份市值返还投资款并赔偿2018年红利损失。

Party A, a foreign citizen and Party B, a Chinese citizen entered into a Share Purchase and Entrustment Agreement in 2005, under which Party A agreed to purchase 880,000 shares in Company C from Party B at a price of RMB4.36 per share and entrusted Party B to manage such shares, and Party B was to dispose of such shares as instructed by Party A, exercise the right of a shareholder in Party B’s name and deliver all the investment income to Party A in full and in time.Company C launched its initial public offering at the Shanghai Stock Exchange in 2017. During this process, Party Bhad repeatedly represented that all the shares registered thereof are not subject to any entrusted shareholding arrangement. In 2018, Company C distributed to all shareholders a dividend of RMB 4 for each ten shares held by them and converted its capital reserve into shares at the proportion of 4 additional shares for each existing ten shares. As a result, the number of shares held by Party B was increased to 1,232,000. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the Party A and Party B over the validity of the Share Purchase and Entrustment Agreement and the distribution of the investment income. Party A requested the court to order Party B to deliver the investment income of the shares in Company C or return the present value of his investment calculated by the market price of the shares and compensate him for the loss of the dividends for 2018.

3. 裁判结果

3. Judgment

上海金融法院作出(2018)沪74民初585号民事判决：一、甲某可与乙某协商，对乙某名下123.2万股丙公司股票进行出售，若协商不成，甲某可申请对上述股票进行拍卖、变卖，上述股票出售、拍卖、变卖所得款项中优先支付甲某投资款3,836,800元，若所得款项金额超过投资款金额，超过部分的70%归甲某所有，剩余部分归乙某所有；二、乙某向甲某支付2017年现金红利352,000元（扣除应缴纳税费）的70%。宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉，判决已发生法律效力。

The Shanghai Financial Court (the “Court”)decided in the Civil Judgement of (2018) Hu 74 Min Chu No. 585 as follows: 1. Party A may negotiate with Party B to sell the 1,232,000 shares of Company C registered in Party B’s name or,if such negotiation fails, apply forthe auction or sale of such shares. Proceeds from such sale or auction shall be first used to pay Party A’s investment amount of RMB 3,836,800, and for any remains thereof,70% to be distributed to Party A and 30% to Party B; 2. Party B shallpay 70% of the 2017 cash dividend or RMB 352,000 (less tax payable) to Party A. Neither Party A nor Party B appealed, and the Judgement has come into force.

4. 裁判理由

4. Reasoning

法院认为，《民法总则》第一百五十三条第二款规定，“违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效”。公序良俗的概念具有较大弹性，在具体案件中应审慎适用，避免过度克减民事主体的意思自治。公序良俗包括公共秩序和善良风俗。证券领域的公共秩序应先根据该领域的法律法规予以判断，在上位法律无明确规定的情况下，判断某一下位规则是否构成公共秩序时，应从实体正义和程序正当两个层面进行考察：该规则应当体现证券领域法律和行政法规所规定的国家和社会整体利益；该规则的制定主体应当具有法定权威，制定与发布符合法定程序，具有较高的公众知晓度和认同度。证券发行人应当如实披露股份权属情况，禁止发行人股份存在隐名代持情形，系由《证券法》和《首次公开发行股票并上市管理办法》明确规定，关系到以信息披露为基础的证券市场整体法治秩序和广大投资者合法权益，在实体和程序两个层面均符合公共秩序的构成要件，因此属于证券市场中应当遵守、不得违反的公共秩序。隐名代持证券发行人股权的协议违反公共秩序而无效。

The Court held that, article 153.2 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China– General Part provides that “A juridical act against public order and good morals is null and void.” However, the concept of “public order and good morals” is highly flexible and should hence be applied prudently to avoid excessive limitation on the autonomy of will.The concept consists of two parts: public order and good morals.The meaning of public order in the securities market shall be first determined in accordance with applicable securities laws and administrative regulations. Where there is no specific provision in such laws and regulations, whether a subordinate rule constitutes public order shall be considered in light of both substantive justice and due process. Substantive justice test means that the rule shall conform to the overall interests of the state and society as stipulated by laws and administrative regulations in the field; while due process test refers to that the rule shall be made by a competent authority, be formulated and publishedin line with legal procedures and have extensivepublic awareness and acceptance. It is expressly provided for in the Securities Law and the Administrative Measures for the Initial Public Offering and Listing of Stocks that a securities issuer shall faithfully disclose its shareholding information and any agreement of anonymous entrusted shareholding is forbidden. Such rule is vital to the overall legal order of the securities market, which is founded on information disclosure system, and to the lawful rights and interests of investors, and passed both the substantive and procedural tests of public order and hence constitutes the public order that is required to be observed in the securities market. As an agreement on anonymous entrusted shareholding of a securities issuer offended such public order, it shall be held invalid.

股权代持协议被认定无效后，投资收益不属于合同订立前的原有利益，不适用恢复原状的法律规定，应适用公平原则，根据对投资收益的贡献程度以及对投资风险的承受程度等情形，即“谁投资、谁收益”与“收益与风险相一致”进行合理分配。名义持有人与实际投资人一致表示以系争股票拍卖、变卖后所得向实际投资人返还投资款和支付股份增值收益，属于依法处分自身权利的行为，不违反法律法规的禁止性规定，可予支持。

After the entrusted shareholding agreement was held invalid, as the investment income was not interests existing prior to the execution of the agreement, the legal provisions on recovery of the original state is not applicable; instead, the principle of equity shall govern. In other words, such income should be reasonably distributed according to the contribution of the parties and the investment risk sharing arrangement, i.e., the principle of “the investor gets the income” and the principle of “the risk bearer gets the income”. The nominal shareholder and the actual investor agreed to auction or sell the stocks in dispute, and use the proceeds thereof to return the investment fund and pay the stock appreciation to the actual investor. Such agreement was essentially legal exercise of their own rights which did not violate any prohibitions in applicable laws and regulations, and was affirmed by the Court.

5. 裁判意义

5. Significance

近年来，关于金融市场公共秩序或公共利益的界定问题引发理论界和实务界的广泛讨论。本案涉及上市公司在证券发行过程中股权的隐名代持效力问题。裁判围绕证券市场公共秩序认定和股份代持无效后收益分配原则等问题的论证说理，对同类案件的审理具有指导意义，体现了司法在个案中平衡保护投资权益与我国金融市场公共秩序的立场。裁判尊重当事人意愿，以标的股票变现所得进行分配的方式，有效解决了投资收益因上市公司股价波动而难以固定的问题，得到了双方当事人的认可，为同类案件妥善解决提供有益借鉴。

In recent years, the question of how to define the concept of public order or public interests in the financial market has triggered extensive discussions in both academic and practical communities. This case involves the validity of anonymousentrusted shareholding agreement of shares in a company pending listing. By exploring the concept of public order in the securities market and the principle for income distribution after entrusted shareholding agreement is invalidated, the Judgement provided guidance to the trial of like cases and reflected the position taken by judicial powers to strike a balance between protection of investors’ interests and protection of public order in financial market. The Judgement respected the will of the parties and, by distributing the proceeds from the auction or sale of the stocks in question, effectively overcame the difficulty in determining investment income against the fluctuant stock price of a listed company. This solution has been accepted by the parties and will be helpful for settling similar disputes.

本文版权归作者所有，对于本文有任何意见或者建议，欢迎和作者取得联系。沈彦炜，全球合伙人，邮箱：shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com

All right reserved. If you have any suggestion, please feel free to contact me. Sean Shen, Global Partner, E-mail: shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com