Recently, Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, Sun Yanhui, Zhang Guangshuai, Lu Hexin, Li Ao lawyers accepted a central enterprise entrusted to represent the enterprise and Bank A 180 million yuan contract dispute arbitration case. After accepting the proxy, the lawyers communicated with the client for many times and retrieved the key evidence of the case, and fully expressed the proxy opinion. After the case was heard by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, the arbitration tribunal fully adopted Sun Yanhui's and other lawyers' opinions and finally ruled to reject all of Bank A's arbitration requests.

Basic Facts of the Case

Bank A filed an arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission, requesting a centralized enterprise to pay the price of 180 million RMB for coal. bank A claimed that: in order to obtain financing, the outsider company A submitted the Coal Sale and Purchase Contract and the corresponding VAT invoices (totaling about 180 million RMB) signed with the principal company in this case, and handled the discounting of 150 million RMB for the factoring-type domestic commercial invoices. Company A used its non-existent claim on the principal company as a repayment method and also issued a Confirmation of Assignment of Receivables to Bank A. Now, due to Company A's inability to repay its debts as they fall due, Bank A asserts its claim on the accounts receivable against the Principal Company.

The Principal Company claimed the opposite: firstly, it had never entered into the contract with Company A, and the relevant trade had not actually taken place; secondly, it had never issued the Confirmation of Assignment of Receivables to Company A or Bank A. The core dispute of the case was that the Principal Company had never signed the contract with Company A, and the relevant trade had not actually taken place.

The core points of contention in this case are:

1. Whether the transaction under the contract in question actually existed;

2. whether Bank A fulfilled its minimum examination obligation in the course of the discounting business.

Difficulties of the case

After the client company's self-examination, it had never entered into the contract in question with Company A, nor had it received the goods and VAT invoices under the contract. However, it lacked key evidence to prove the non-existence of the trade in question for the purpose of proof, etc., and might face the risk of losing the case due to insufficient evidence, which was rather passive. More importantly, the client company is a centralized enterprise, such as the case finally ruled that the client company to bear the responsibility of payment will lead to a significant loss of state-owned assets, the higher authorities to pursue the responsibility and other issues. This case is very difficult and the time left for the lawyers to prepare for the trial was very short, which increased the pressure and risk of the lawyers' team.

Acting lawyer work

Sun Yanhui lawyer team accepted the commission after actively communicate and coordinate with the client, assigned lawyers on-site office. The legal relationship of this case is complex, the lawyer team has organized many times to discuss the legal relationship of the case, simulation of the case and other work. In addition, in order to present the complete and true facts of the case to the arbitration tribunal, the lawyers went to the field to collect evidence, and submitted additional evidence and opinions to the arbitration tribunal for many times.

Result of Arbitration Decision

The case was heard by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, and the arbitration tribunal fully adopted the views of the attorney-in-fact, finding that the coal trade under the contract did not actually take place, and finding that Bank A did not fulfill the minimum obligation of reasonable examination in handling the discounting business of domestic commercial invoices, and that the client company should not be responsible for any payment and repayment obligations, and that the time was so long ago that it was beyond the limitation period of the arbitration. In the end, the Beijing Arbitration Commission ruled to reject all of Bank A's arbitration requests and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the agent company.