Coal prices continue to rise, not only for the capital markets, "fly dance", also detonated nine nine shaft in jixi city in Heilongjiang mine right battle.
2014 when coal prices down, the mine at a discount of 50 million Yuan, it is difficult to find investors buying Consortium. Now, its value jumped to billions of Yuan. However, fight 3 shareholders of the mine, has yet to enjoy the dividends of coal prices, growing to feed or missed the best time to harvest them.
From legal point of view, an alleged loopholes in the stock transfer agreement on how to interpret, will determine the ultimate ownership of the right to mine.
Flawed deal raises competition for coal mine, located in the North of the Northeast's largest coal city of jixi city in Heilongjiang, Xin Cheng coal mine, under the jixi mining industry group. In 1999, the mine owners Su Zhiguo "investment" contractor engaged xincheng coal mine nine nine Wells, that the mine, which belongs to state-owned enterprises, was asked after reconstruction, Su Zhiguo completed the transformation of coal mine, and go through the relevant formalities.
In November 2014, due to financial difficulties with coal prices, equivalent to total 50 million yuan in Su Zhiguo decided to mine, absorption of Zhang sheng, Guo Jinhai stakes, and signed the agreement on the transfer of shares.
Reporters noted that the share transfer agreement agreed with the Sheng invested 17.5 million Yuan, Guo Jinhai invested 15 million Yuan, Su Zhiguo bought 35% shares and 30% shares respectively, but the money is not paid directly to Su Zhiguo, but on the transformation of inputs into the mine. Agreement also agreed, buy shares for two, simply perform some obligation, respectively, 9 million Yuan investment of 10 million Yuan. After treating the mine generates profits, two people with its share of the profits, paid to Su Zhiguo, arrived in top as shares of the transfer price.
Su Zhiguo said in an interview, very sloppy this agreement is signed, details are not clear, as appropriate, there are loopholes that misunderstanding happened. He acknowledged that because of lower coal prices and pressure to reform, he has on the transfer price of credit, payment concessions.
Su vulnerability, which is not agreed upon completion of the investment, if not, what to do with the dispute. Many years later, this issue, leading to tensions explode.
In fact, even if the introduction of two new investors and completed approximately 21 million yuan in investment, the mines also have been unable to normal production, small scale pilot production, did not produce a profit. This means that most of the shares transferred after two people, Su Zhiguo failed to get anything in return.
In a letter to Su Zhiguo Zhang, Guo Erren, Zhang, Guo Erren insists, because there is no profit, Su Zhiguo has no right to request them to pay the transfer of shares.
The other hand, according to the agreement, after the signing, 35%-owned mine right all by Charles Chang stresses winning charge. In the case of lack of profits, Su Zhiguo had neither of pecuniary gains, also mine right away to others.
On top of that, because of the poor management, mine workers ' wages, outstanding security deposits, industry management, material and so on. Default lead miners ' petition, aroused great concern in jixi City Government, continued under pressure, as ore Su Zhiguo had to foreign borrowing, managed to solve the problem of wage arrears.
On July 16, 2016 to Kuo Su Zhiguo Zhang Erren notice II fails to fulfill the main terms of the contract, request the cancellation of the share transfer agreement and recover the right to mine management. Zhang, Guo Erren subsequently to the Court on July 27, asks to cancel the agreement, liquidation of assets, Division of partnership property.
Su Zhiguo immediately defends the disarmament agreements is also required, but advocates, two persons shall be returned to the mine's operating assets and all of the rights involved, and the removal of obstacles. Su also pointed out that, two people belonging to different subjects, dispute is the subject of a different, incompatible with the common conditions of the plaintiff. It is reported that the case is still in Chengzihe District people's Court in jixi city.
Who's right? It is understood that related litigation materials, Zhang, Guo Erren believes that, in accordance with the agreement that they had paid a total of more than 21 million Yuan, exceeding the amounts stipulated in the agreement of 19 million Yuan, and advances for the Su Zhiguo, which comply fully with the agreement. In their view, Su asks to cancel the agreement's argument is not valid.
2014 when coal prices down, the mine at a discount of 50 million Yuan, it is difficult to find investors buying Consortium. Now, its value jumped to billions of Yuan. However, fight 3 shareholders of the mine, has yet to enjoy the dividends of coal prices, growing to feed or missed the best time to harvest them.
From legal point of view, an alleged loopholes in the stock transfer agreement on how to interpret, will determine the ultimate ownership of the right to mine.
Flawed deal raises competition for coal mine, located in the North of the Northeast's largest coal city of jixi city in Heilongjiang, Xin Cheng coal mine, under the jixi mining industry group. In 1999, the mine owners Su Zhiguo "investment" contractor engaged xincheng coal mine nine nine Wells, that the mine, which belongs to state-owned enterprises, was asked after reconstruction, Su Zhiguo completed the transformation of coal mine, and go through the relevant formalities.
In November 2014, due to financial difficulties with coal prices, equivalent to total 50 million yuan in Su Zhiguo decided to mine, absorption of Zhang sheng, Guo Jinhai stakes, and signed the agreement on the transfer of shares.
Reporters noted that the share transfer agreement agreed with the Sheng invested 17.5 million Yuan, Guo Jinhai invested 15 million Yuan, Su Zhiguo bought 35% shares and 30% shares respectively, but the money is not paid directly to Su Zhiguo, but on the transformation of inputs into the mine. Agreement also agreed, buy shares for two, simply perform some obligation, respectively, 9 million Yuan investment of 10 million Yuan. After treating the mine generates profits, two people with its share of the profits, paid to Su Zhiguo, arrived in top as shares of the transfer price.
Su Zhiguo said in an interview, very sloppy this agreement is signed, details are not clear, as appropriate, there are loopholes that misunderstanding happened. He acknowledged that because of lower coal prices and pressure to reform, he has on the transfer price of credit, payment concessions.
Su vulnerability, which is not agreed upon completion of the investment, if not, what to do with the dispute. Many years later, this issue, leading to tensions explode.
In fact, even if the introduction of two new investors and completed approximately 21 million yuan in investment, the mines also have been unable to normal production, small scale pilot production, did not produce a profit. This means that most of the shares transferred after two people, Su Zhiguo failed to get anything in return.
In a letter to Su Zhiguo Zhang, Guo Erren, Zhang, Guo Erren insists, because there is no profit, Su Zhiguo has no right to request them to pay the transfer of shares.
The other hand, according to the agreement, after the signing, 35%-owned mine right all by Charles Chang stresses winning charge. In the case of lack of profits, Su Zhiguo had neither of pecuniary gains, also mine right away to others.
On top of that, because of the poor management, mine workers ' wages, outstanding security deposits, industry management, material and so on. Default lead miners ' petition, aroused great concern in jixi City Government, continued under pressure, as ore Su Zhiguo had to foreign borrowing, managed to solve the problem of wage arrears.
On July 16, 2016 to Kuo Su Zhiguo Zhang Erren notice II fails to fulfill the main terms of the contract, request the cancellation of the share transfer agreement and recover the right to mine management. Zhang, Guo Erren subsequently to the Court on July 27, asks to cancel the agreement, liquidation of assets, Division of partnership property.
Su Zhiguo immediately defends the disarmament agreements is also required, but advocates, two persons shall be returned to the mine's operating assets and all of the rights involved, and the removal of obstacles. Su also pointed out that, two people belonging to different subjects, dispute is the subject of a different, incompatible with the common conditions of the plaintiff. It is reported that the case is still in Chengzihe District people's Court in jixi city.
Who's right? It is understood that related litigation materials, Zhang, Guo Erren believes that, in accordance with the agreement that they had paid a total of more than 21 million Yuan, exceeding the amounts stipulated in the agreement of 19 million Yuan, and advances for the Su Zhiguo, which comply fully with the agreement. In their view, Su asks to cancel the agreement's argument is not valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment