Recently, King&Capital Law Firm Lin Lin represented two major investment disputes received the court's judgment on the same day, both cases were fully successful, the judgment supported all of the client's litigation requests, including equity repurchase price, investment income, liquidated damages, etc., and the cumulative amount of support up to more than 100 million yuan, which effectively safeguarded the client's core business interests, and won a high degree of acclaim.
Case background: deadlocked for several years, professional problem solving
Although there were differences between the client, the counterparty and the facts of the two cases, there was a common point: the disputes had been accumulated for a long time. Because the parties concerned, including private enterprises, financial institutions, natural persons, state-owned enterprises, government agencies and other subjects, concerns, interests involved in a wide range, and the parties to the core issues of their own views, resulting in a deadlock in the settlement of disputes, the parties have been communicating for a number of years, but has not been able to reach agreement.
And because the principal of the relevant parties to the “shares of the actual debt”, “the effectiveness of the guarantee”, “the difference between the full effect”, "repurchase price pricing “and the principal in the performance of the process of” fault behavior “and other key legal issues lack of clarity, professional judgment, resulting in its ”jealousy", the delay in starting the litigation process.
Linlin lawyers intervene in two cases, through the core legal issues and risks of the case of reasoned analysis, so that the client for the whole case towards a clearer prediction and cognition, for the deadlocked investment disputes brought a breakthrough turnaround, two cases of the client coincidentally decided to entrust Linlin lawyers to file a lawsuit.
Second, the pre-litigation deployment: accurate research, forward-looking exercise of rights
Linlin lawyers accepted the commission, did not rush to litigation, but first of the investment agreement and a series of supporting documents to analyze one by one, and combined with the prediction of the whole case towards the drafting of a list of information, requesting the client to provide relevant information in accordance with the list, so as to combine the background of the investment and the investment project to carry out a systematic study of the two cases. During the process, she recognized that there might be disputes between the parties on the identification of the subject of the buyback, and more importantly, the client had commissioned legal counsel to send a lawyer's letter, but there were major problems in the expression of the lawyer's letter, which was not only difficult to be recognized as a valid claim for exercising the right, but also contradicted with the litigation plan determined by the client, which needed to be corrected urgently. In addition, the investment agreement agreed to the share buyback price of liquidated damages up to five ten thousandths of a day, and the client in the formal litigation before the need to fulfill the approval process will take several months.
In light of the above, Linlin decided to draft and send the key exercise letter on behalf of the client before formally filing the lawsuit, and at the same time, made corrections and improvements to the previous “defects” that had been sorted out. These initiatives subsequently proved to be critical to the success of the case, not only was the court recognized as an effective exercise of the right to choose the behavior, and correct the evidence also constitutes an important claim on the other side of the effective defense, successfully resolved the Lin Lin lawyer before the intervention of the “defects” brought about by the risk, and thus lock the liquidated damages calculated from the point of time to eliminate the The other side to delay the litigation, the intention of the implementation, and ultimately for the customer additional millions of dollars in liquidated damages.
Third, the court battle: the force to fight the group discussion, arguing focus
In order to realize the full coverage of the client's rights and interests, Linlin lawyers took the litigation strategy of “litigation, closed loop responsibility”, and listed the repurchase obligor, the difference between the obligation to make up for the difference, the subject company, the guarantor, and other legal or agreed supplemental liabilities as the defendants, to ensure the completeness of the chain of responsibility.
Due to the large number of defendants involved and the complexity of the legal relationship involved, the trial of both cases lasted nearly one day, and the focus of the dispute was intensive and complex, including but not limited to: whether the investment agreement was a “real debt”; whether the terms of the investment agreement were invalid; whether the obligation to make up the difference constituted a guarantee guarantee; the validity of the legal person's difference in the difference; whether the guarantee contract was valid for the guarantee; and whether the guarantee contract was invalid for the guarantee company. Whether the guarantee contract was effective for the guarantor; whether the guarantee liability was continued after the adjustment of the repurchase plan in the investment agreement; whether the client's right to choose the obligor of the equity repurchase was a formative right; whether the conditions for early repurchase were triggered in this case; how the repurchase price was determined; and whether the repurchase involved the need to carry out the procedures for entering into a market, etc. The above disputes covered not only commercial disputes, but also commercial disputes.
The above disputes not only cover common legal issues in the field of commercial dispute resolution, but also new issues that have not yet been standardized in judicial practice due to the special nature of the investment project and the subject involved. With solid theoretical reserves and thorough pre-trial preparations, Linlin predicted and constructed a rigorous argumentation system in advance, and responded clearly and forcefully to each of the focuses. In the end, the core viewpoints of the agency were supported by the court, and the judgment also quoted the lawyer's argument in many places, which achieved significant results.
Conclusion: professional escort, to live up to their responsibilities
In the two cases, the client's original biggest demand is only to recover the principal of the investment, but the judgment not only supported the equity repurchase request, for the investment income and liquidated damages to be supported in full, the two cases not only to help the client successfully recover the 100 million yuan of investment principal, and cover the client for many years of the cost of capital occupancy and the loss of the right to defend, and realize the maximization of the economic benefits.
This victory, which was delayed for several years, demonstrated the decisive value of professional legal services, and the client also repeatedly expressed her gratitude and recognition to Lin Lin after receiving the judgment.
Lin Lin's victory in two major complex cases on the same day once again proved his ability in the field of equity investment, financial and commercial disputes. In the future, Lin Lin and her team will continue to uphold the practice philosophy of “highly responsible, extreme professionalism, create value”, and dedicate themselves to providing every client with predictive and combative legal services, escorting business decisions and resolving major risks.
