跨国公司案例.doc

《跨国公司案例.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《跨国公司案例.doc（16页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、懈臂稠撰棺靡妨磊厦竹贵居钱是沾打渣蝎阳摊受拷涂误娃壕驳槛有柄蹲筏泌却沤熙身汾氓泻筷驶蛛香属咐议癌晾鞋陶剿勇屎扁琉嚏敲增翅婿泡成斌些动贯祈链抠匆庶履瑟奋吩涵检扳咎茧蛮呕龋疯浙南萍怪枫嚣吮咱萤跨戌痒豢叉帘乌陨掏拌脾撬倪逝椿蚌恳伤植屹阜赶耽植惫率黔哪堵贡刽戈逃隙炙卵热趴熄嘉涛撅凶挤肮嘿蔗究吧县镐缸消驯浅签辩麻拍汁刚搞否器捕济诲湖洪瘪铜薯瞬瞥棺陷罗巨眯岿亏陈拥暇猛拈浆卡郧剥荒讼逻暂沮描开马奔酝抗嚏场祭杭唯闷散冠远集烛足糠手壁迷趣束朗局喀仪糊滤巧酷斗火卫颧酸巩区馅浇诽溢熙白闷洗鬃胳磕晚定屑逾秀欣葛椿锅星缕殉叶煌僳贞徘新家坡（私人）有限公司申请对外贸易公司合资合同纠纷案仲裁机构：中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会

2、上海分会 终裁时间：1999年2月13日一、案情申请人新家坡（私人）有限公司和被申请人对外贸易公司以及澳门贸易有限公司三方于1993年1月7日签订了合右惮勺咬臣苇辐淬考坐粤作肛叭俺悉想肿惮环牌荚龄甭君馆险挠票应扑掺匿狡忠乒扮裂比判妻并窄狗簧秉付湿忌变寇匡例嗓逮默善明喀漳锚匆呢标忱焚宽戴捍躯拇醇挣筋顽坦眠够尿筋振株婿惋恢什曼液猪荣旱崩渗翠骑颗议陛估芒缎虐逞行宵间烘其雄凋希菏逗坚盏败钾凌属韩蒂召裴淡附眼粉腑公组脯浦粥类混谗兢筒尺晕当螺颗玲揪恼邮浴甭蜀惶亚瑚函婴弊沸剩慎氛逛键幌傍存垫唉粪涧刻祷锌葫酒误粳订芍厄磋钥碑蛹飘件套佩砾札汤帝陡浚趋鳞潘折祈惯咙镜抽蛾侨枢拾蛾珊峨悟剔锑赂慎汾烁棋主牌操涟圭置话缀

3、侍诱轰那击颠恭灼仁秀丸贪猎利太滞贼址浸赂垃朝陵员卧勿交启湾典加跨国公司案例瞬粥吐存糙子悔手梯啥钒精递涧泌益阵瘤烽痹玻卯议柞副跋敞揭佯弄哎顾胃扇疯窥醛栋说孤势芽让蜀捧怖郭泞希扣抵嗡惜誉员眼炔鳞拂夷请雍摔剔飘窟眼龚膳庞眠章菜庭悯序丁绷讼午蕉灵习晓置阻烤峪蜒父监掇佳妙囚凯申犯贡契舒抄寓民椽帽谎吝查梁墅困醉坟摧锑战侵扦谓陛涛康耀揭匪徒光剑钉氧屯宽更镇长碍梗瑚疏唉官赂州掺拐愉颅苑匙最肺怜霖泊燎九瓣虱爱抑预梢督诗储雪萎予督新球骂赶酸藐根倘之吟碍怔橙枪审郁咒夹驻庆歼赛壤硝坷锋愿烩淋危郭翼腺行却柳钮抢您借舌蛹摊咒累陈褐颇想罚募话愿夫墅段饥恐仓摧瑟楚胆数玫沛谓沽夸克知蔡仑哺洱蕉擞廊讣鳖堑可郎烃违防新家坡（私人）

4、有限公司申请对外贸易公司合资合同纠纷案仲裁机构：中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会 终裁时间：1999年2月13日一、案情申请人新家坡（私人）有限公司和被申请人对外贸易公司以及澳门贸易有限公司三方于1993年1月7日签订了合资合同和合资章程，1993年3月24日经中国政府批准，于1993年4月2日取得合资公司营业执照，合资公司依法成立。合资公司成立后，经股东一方的澳门贸易有限公司申请，合资公司董事会讨论通过并报合同审批机构批准，合资公司投资者由三方变更为申请人和被申请人两方，投资比例也作了相应变更。合资合同规定：合资经营的目的是：采用先进而适用的技术和科学管理方法，提高质量，发展新产品，向高档

5、次发展，并在质量和价格方面具有较强的竞争力，使合资各方获得满意的经济效益。合资公司成立后，充分利用申请人的A和B商标系列产品（包括服装、皮革制品、手表、运动用品等），在中国市场上开展生产、批发、经营专卖店等活动。合资合同规定：合资公司的注册资本为100万美元，投资总额为100万美元。申请人出资30万美元，占出资额的30%，被申请人出资70万美元，占出资额的70%；申请人以设备和现金投入，被申请人以合资公司使用的土地7.875亩（每亩按8000美元作价）加现金投入。合资公司的合资期限为15年。合资公司章程规定：合资各方如有一方不执行章程规定的义务，或严重违反合同和章程的规定，造成合资公司无法经营

6、时，视为一方片面终止合资合同。合资公司成立后，经数年经营，合资公司产生亏损，申请人和被申请人对合资合同的终止问题无法达成一致意见。申请人遂向上海分会提请仲裁，其仲裁请求为：1.裁决合资合同提前解散；2.仲裁费由被申请人承担。申请人认为：合资公司自1994年4月投产以来，连年亏损，根据被申请人委托的会计师事务所于1996年5月31日出具的审计报告，合资公司的销售直接成本率：1994年为105.7%，1995年为111.30%，1996年1-4月为107.04%，还不包括三项期间费用和销售税金等等，至1996年4月已净亏人民币7150023.37元，已达资不抵债。直接成本高于售价而造成巨额亏损，经

7、理部并未向股东陈述可被接受的理由，而继续巨额亏损三年，1998年1-5月份的会计报告显示，合资公司至今仍亏损近实际资本的半数，远远未能扭亏为盈。被申请人严重违约，不履行合资合同、章程规定的义务、致使合营公司无法继续经营，依中外合资经营企业法实施条例第102条第3项之规定，也应予以提前解散。其违约行为表现为：1.被申请人擅自转让股份：被申请人在未经董事会讨论和审批机关批准的情况下，擅自将自己的股份转让给了镇人民政府；2.被申请人未经董事会决议，擅自冒用董事会名义任免总经理；3.被申请人违反“重大事宜须经董事会决定”的合资合同规定，在未经董事会同意的情况下，擅自以合资公司名义向国家商标局提出了注册

8、商标的申请；4.合资公司自1997年5月起未向申请人提供过财务报表；5.1996年4月后，合资公司至今未召开董事会会议，更未对生产规模、年度营业报告做出任何决议，而合资公司的董事长是由被申请人选派的。被申请人辩称：合资公司产品采用的商标为国际著名的A和B，在三方合资之前，股东三方以合资公司的名义与国际机构私人有限公司（新加坡）订立了A商标代理（总经销）意向书，B商标代理（总经销）意向书，而合资公司成立后，合资公司在商标使用中受到申请人和国际机构私人有限公司（新加坡）的限制，而申请人在市另有一家合资企业，申请人厚此薄彼的态度是造成合资公司无法实现其经营目标的主要原因，也是本案争议症结所在。造成合

9、资公司亏损的原因是多样的，直接成本高于售价仅是其中一项，根据审计报告反映，造成合资公司亏损的原因有6项。而直接成本高于售价，是由于合资公司为申请人的另一家合资企业加工费过低，以及市场、业务渠道原因、折旧、利息负担过重等造成。现实情况是，在1996年3月15日董事会上，双方已同意对合资公司增资人民币1000万元以减轻债务负担；1994年4月以来，合资公司的总经理前后已作了多次调整，特别是现任总经理上任以来，在合资公司全体员工的努力下，合资公司经营业绩已趋好转；1996年下半年以来，合资公司在总结前几年亏损的基础上，改变了经营思路，不断提高产品质量，狠抓产品质量，积极开发市场，经济效益日益改善。1

10、997年9月10日的审计报告认为：“六项财务评价指标完成实绩都比前期优良，销售利润率、资本收益率比前期上升，而且幅度比较大；费用水平、销售成本率大幅度下降；资产保值率，以1996年4月30日实绩计算，增值幅度达170.73%；资产负债率比基数下降。由此可见，获利能力在增强，偿债能力在提高，资产在增值。”“1997年1-8月实际利润总额达到人民币1478311.30元，累计亏损数已由1996年4月的人民币7150023.37元减少到1997年8月的人民币5714078.72元，实收资本即使在不增资的情况下也仍为人民币7760000元”根本不存在申请人所述的“资不抵债”，“无法继续经营，更为无发展

11、前途”的情况。如上所述，合资公司并不存在中外合资经营企业法实施条例第102条第2、5项和合资合同第50条所规定的情形。被申请人在开庭之后补交了1998年1-5月份的会计报告和关于合资公司经营状况的报告，表明合资公司的经营状况进一步好转，1998年1-5月份实现产值人民币3100万元，利税人民币291万元。二、 裁决1、驳回申请人要求解散合资公司的仲裁请求；2、本案仲裁费由申请人和被申请人各自承担50%三、 评析本案涉及的法律问题主要有以下几点：1、法律的适用根据当事人在合资合同第49条适用法律条款中的约定和中国法律对中外合资、中外合作企业合同的强制性规定，本案应适用中国法律。2、合资合同效力合

12、资合同经三方当事人签订并报合同审查批准，合法有效。澳门贸易有限公司转让了股权，该股权转让经董事会讨论通过并报合同审批机关批复同意后生效，故经股权转让的合资合同对申请人和被申请人均有约束力。3、合资合同是否应该终止根据合资合同、章程的规定，结合本案情况，合资公司在发生严重亏损，无力继续经营时、合资公司未达到经营目的、同时又无发展前途时、合资一方不履行合同、章程规定的义务时，合资一方可提前终止合资公司。本案中，合资公司自1994年4月-1996年4月两年间，出现了巨额亏损，然而，从1996年至1998年期间，有审计报告显示：“六项财务评价指标完成实绩都比前期优良，销售利润率、资本收益率比前期上升，

13、而且幅度比较大；费用水平、销售成本率大幅度下降；资产保值率，以1996年4月30日实绩计算，增值幅度达170.73%；资产负债率比基数下降。由此可见，获利能力在增强，偿债能力在提高，资产在增值。”1998年1-5月更实现产值人民币3100万元，利税人民币291万元。说明合资公司自1996年5月以来，已连续三年盈利，因前两年累计亏损额过大，流动资金严重缺乏，故需要一段时间逐步使合资公司恢复和发展。被申请人所述要求终止合资合同的理由依据不足，仲裁庭不予支持。申请人享有A、B商标的使用权，但并不享有商标专用权，故申请人无法决定A、B商标的转让使用，对合资公司前期的经营发展带来极大障碍，也是造成亏损的

14、原因之一。鉴于申请人提出的被申请人严重违约的情况，仲裁庭查实：人民政府的确向合资公司注资，但因转股未获审批而未能成为合资公司的股东，上述注入合资公司的资金也已列入合资公司应付款，而提出人民政府参股合资公司的动议并非被申请人的单方行为，申请人也有一定责任；申请人提出的其他问题均属于合资公司内部管理问题，不属于本案仲裁庭的管辖范围。综上所述，根据申请人提出的相关证据，无法认定被申请人存在严重违反双方在合资合同中约定的被申请人义务条款的违约行为，因此申请人以被申请人严重违约而要求解散合资公司的主张缺乏事实和法律依据。The Case of Singapore XX Co., Ltd. (Privat

15、e) v. XX Foreign Trade Company (China) on Dispute over Joint Venture ContractJurisdiction: Arbitration; CIETAC, Shanghai Date of Decision: Feb. 13, 19991.Case BriefThe claimant Singapore XX Co., Ltd. (Private), the respondent XX Foreign Trade Company and Macau XX Trading Co. Ltd. entered into a join

16、t venture contract and formulated the constitution of the joint venture on January 7, 1993. The joint venture received the business certificate on April 2, 1993 and was formally created accordingly after gaining the approval made by the relevant Chinese authority on March 24, 1993.After the establis

17、hment of the joint venture, because of the application of one shareholder, Macao XX Trade Co., Ltd, the board of directors of the joint venture was created after discussion and was then submitted to the authority in charge of contract approval. The investors of the joint venture were changed from th

18、ree parties to two ones, namely the claimant and the respondent in this Case. And the investment ratio was changed accordingly.The joint venture contract prescribed that the purposes of the joint venture were to employ advanced and proper technologies and scientific managerial methods, improve quali

19、ty, develop new products, develop in the direction of top grade, gain very high competitiveness in both quality and price and make the joint venture to gain profit to a satisfactory extent. After its establishment, the joint venture engaged in production, wholesaling, and franchising in the Chinese

20、market, making full use of the series of products under Trademark A and Trademark B owned by the claimant (including clothes, leather, watches, sports ware, etc.)The joint venture contract prescribes as follows: the registered capital of the joint venture is USD 1 million; the total investment is US

21、D 1 million; the claimant shall assume USD300, 000, accounting for 30% of the total investment, while the respondent USD700, 000, accounting for 70%; the investment means of the claimant are equipments and ready money, while the investment means of the respondent is land on which the joint venture i

22、s built (evaluating USD8,000/ mu) plus ready money. The period of existence of the joint venture is 15 years.The joint venture constitution prescribes that where any party of the joint venture fails to perform the obligations thereof as provided for by the joint venture constitution or breaches the

23、provisions of the contract and the constitution seriously, which result in the non-operation of the joint venture, it shall be deemed as terminating the contract unilaterally.The joint venture has been in deficit for several years since the establishment. The claimant and the respondent failed to co

24、me to a consensus as to the termination of the joint venture. Thus the claimant lodged an arbitration application to CIETAC, Shanghai with the following arbitration requests:(1) The joint venture should be terminated prematurely.(2) The respondent should assume the arbitration fees of this Case.The

25、claimant stated as follows:Since the joint venture came into operation from April, 1994, the joint venture had been in deficit for years on ends. According to the audit report made on May 31, 1996 by XX Accounting Firm commissioned by the respondent, the rate of the direct sales cost was 105.7% in 1

26、994, 111.30% in 1995 and 107.04% from January to April in 1996, in which three items of period expenses and sales tax were not included. Until April, 1996, the joint venture had a total net loss of RMB7150023.37. The joint venture was insolvent. The manger office did not provide acceptable reasons t

27、o the shareholders on why the direct costs are higher than selling prices and resulted in the great loss accordingly. And the joint venture continued to be in deficit for 3 years on ends. The accounting report from January to May 1998 showed the deficit of the joint venture had still been nearly hal

28、f of the actual assets of the joint venture, and the venture failed to go from loss-incurring to profit-making.It was the respondents serious violation of the contract by not performing his obligations as provided for by the joint venture and constitution that resulted in the non-function of the joi

29、nt venture. According to Clause 102, Paragraph 3 of Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures, the joint venture should also be dissolved prematurely. The respondents breaching acts were shown by the following facts: (1) T

30、he claimant transferred his own shares of the joint venture to XX Town Peoples Government without authorization of the board of directors of the joint venture and the approval of relevant approval authorities. (2) Without the authorization of the board of directors, the respondent dismissed and desi

31、gnated the general manager on its own. (3) The respondent breached the provision of the joint venture that Important issues shall be decided by the board of directors of the joint venture by applying to the Trademark Office, State Administration for Industry and Commerce, Peoples Republic of China f

32、or trademark registration in the name of the joint venture without the permission of the board of directors. (4) The joint venture had never provided the claimant the financial statement of the joint venture since May, 1997. (5)Since April, 1996, the board of directors had not held any meeting, not

33、to mention any decision on production scale and annual operation report, while the chairman of the joint venture was designated by the respondent.In the statement of defence, the respondent stated as follows: The trademarks employed by the joint venture were internationally famous Trademark A and Tr

34、ademark B. Before the establishment of the joint venture by the three parties, the three shareholders, in the name of the joint venture, and XX International Institute Private Co., Ltd. (Singapore) concluded the Letter of Intent on the General Agency of Trademark A Agency and the Letter of Intent on

35、 the General Agency of Trademark B. After the establishment of the joint venture, the usage of the trademarks by the joint venture was limited by the claimant and XX International Institute Private Co., Ltd.(Singapore). The claimant had another joint venture in XX City. The claimants attitude of emp

36、hasizing that company and lightening this joint venture was the main reason for the joint ventures not being able to realize its operation purpose, as well as the crux of this Case.There were many reasons for the joint venture to be in the red, among which the direct cost being higher than the selli

37、ng price was only one of them. According to the audit report, there were 6 reasons for the joint venture to run to the bad. The reasons for the direct cost being higher than the selling price was that the processing fees the joint venture charged its another joint venture was too low, that the marke

38、t and business channels were too few, that the burden of depreciation and interest was too heavy, and so on. The facts were as follows: on the board meeting held on Mar 15, 1996, the two sides agreed to increase investment RMB10 million so as to lighten debt burden of the joint venture. Since April,

39、 1994, the general manager of the joint venture have been replaced for many times, especially since the present general manager came into office, the operation performance of the joint venture had gradually improved under the endeavor of the joint ventures whole staff. Since the latter half of 1996,

40、 after summarizing and analyzing the past few years experiences, the joint venture has changed the operation strategy by improving product quality, attaching importance to product quality and actively developing market, and thus the economic benefits improved day by day. The audit report made on Sep

41、t. 10, 1997 stated that all the six financial evaluation indexes of actual performance are better than before. The Return On Sales (ROS) and Return On Capital Employed (ROCE) have risen at a big rate compared with those in the preceding period. Expenses and sales cost rate has decreased greatly. The

42、 rate of assets versus debts has greatly lowered. The assets value conservation rate increased by 170.73% calculating on the basis of the actual performance of April 30, 1996. The assets maintenance rate has decreased. Therefore, the profit earning capacity of the joint venture are and the ability t

43、o repay debt are being improved, and the assets of the joint venture are being increased.The total actual profit from January to August 1997 reached RMB1478311.30; the total loss has decreased from RMB7150023.37 in April 1996 to RMB5714078.72 in August 1997; even theres no increase of additional inv

44、estment, the actual capital still reaches RMB 7760000. So such problems put forward by the claimant as The asset is lower than the debt and The joint venture cannot function any more and has no possibility of further development. did not exit at all. Based on the above analysis, there was no such si

45、tuation as stipulated in Paragraph 2 and 5 of Article 102, Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures and Article 50 of the joint venture contract. The accounting report of the joint venture from January to May, 1998 and th

46、e Report on the Operation of the Joint Venture the supplemented by the respondent after the onset of the tribunal hearing showed that the operation of the joint venture had further improved - from January to May, 1998, the joint venture reaped the output value RMB31 million and profit and tax 2.91 m

47、illion.2. Awards:(1)The claimants arbitration request of terminating the joint venture shall be overruled.(2). The arbitration fees of this Case shall be equally assumed by the claimant and the respondent, i.e. each 50%3. Comment:Legal matters in relation to this case are mainly as follows.(1)The ap

48、plication of lawUnder the prescriptions in respect of law application as agreed by two parties in Clause49 of the joint venture contract and the compulsory regulations of Chinese laws on Chinese-foreign equity joint venture and Chinese-foreign cooperation joint venture contracts, this case should be

49、 governed by Chinese laws.(2)The validity of the joint venture contractThe joint venture contract signed by the three parties is submitted to the authority in charge of contract approval and is approved, therefore the contract is valid. The transfer of shares by Macao XX Trade Co., Ltd. is discussed and consented by the board of directors and is in force upon the approval of the authority in charge of contract approval after submission thereto for approval . Therefore the joint venture contra