"When an enterprise enters bankruptcy proceedings, if both parties have not fulfilled the contract, the administrator may decide to terminate the contract or continue to perform the contract. Under certain conditions, the administrator may also decide to continue the company's business.". There is no dispute as to whether the debts incurred by the people's court in continuing to perform the contract after accepting the bankruptcy application belong to the common interest debts. However, the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" does not specify whether debts incurred under contracts that continue to be performed prior to the acceptance of bankruptcy applications should be recognized as co beneficial debts. Therefore, the dispute has always existed in practice. Some courts have ruled that it is a co beneficial debt, while others have not supported the opinion that it is a co beneficial debt. Based on the case undertaken by our firm, this article elaborates on our understanding of co beneficial debt, which only represents the view of Gao Peng's author.

Brief description of the case:
In January 2019, the plaintiff, Mr. Li, purchased an off-road vehicle from the defendant, a vehicle sales service company, and paid more than 800000 yuan for the purchase. In July 2019, the plaintiff, Li Mou, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, claiming that during the use of the vehicle, he found that the paint thickness of the vehicle was inconsistent. He believed that the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, intentionally concealed this situation during the sale of the vehicle, and was fraudulent in intent. He requested the defendant, a vehicle sales service limited company, to refund the purchase price and compensate for losses based on three times the purchase price, The total expenses are over 3.6 million yuan.

In the previous article, the author introduced in detail the concepts of distribution rights, broadcasting rights, screening rights, and information network dissemination rights, as well as the corresponding concrete embodiment in practice. Cinemas need to obtain the right to show movies and TV dramas, television stations need to obtain the right to broadcast movies and TV dramas, and network platforms need to obtain the right to disseminate information through the network. However, there may be many complex situations in practice, especially with the rapid development of the Internet. In addition to traditional cinema and television broadcast media, there have also emerged many new broadcast media, such as cable TV, IPTV, on-demand theaters, hotels, transportation vehicles, private cinemas, entertainment venues, and so on. These new broadcast media have generated a lot of disputes in the practice of the film and television industry.

During the more than a year of "demining" by the two kings of the Chinese delegation, the work of the China Working Group has made little progress. Obviously, the entry of both sides of the Taiwan Strait into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is actually bound together. Without resolving the Taiwan issue, China's negotiations will be difficult to proceed. However, the main contracting parties in the West, led by the United States, the Secretariat of the General Agreement, and the Chairman of the China Working Group, Gillard, are also very clear about a political red line, that is, the Taiwan issue cannot be bypassed by China and cannot be negotiated with the Chinese government. Without the consent of the Chinese government, the Taiwan issue is exempt from negotiations.

Article 8 of the Labor Contract Law stipulates that "When employing a worker, an employer shall truthfully inform the worker of the work content, working conditions, workplace, occupational hazards, safety production status, labor remuneration, and other information that the worker requires to know. The employer has the right to know the basic information directly related to the labor contract of the worker, and the worker shall truthfully explain." This article sets forth the following provisions for the employer and the worker: The "truthful" obligation means that employers have the obligation to "truthfully inform" when recruiting, and workers have the obligation to "truthfully explain".

Article 9 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Guarantee System Related to the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation of the New Guarantee System"), which came into effect on January 1, 2021, establishes the rule of "announcement before guarantee" for external guarantees by listed companies. In the era of the Civil Code, there have been significant changes in the policies and regulations governing external guarantees provided by listed companies, as well as in the judicial thinking of the courts. Compared with previous relevant regulations, the review obligations that creditors should bear when accepting guarantees provided by listed companies have undergone significant changes. In addition to reviewing the effective resolutions of the shareholders' meeting or the board of directors of the listed company, the counterpart is also obligated to review the guarantee information publicly disclosed by the listed company. Otherwise, the external guarantee provided by the listed company may be deemed ineffective against it. This article gives a detailed introduction to the procedures and effectiveness determination of external guarantees by listed companies.

introduction:
The applicant has the right to terminate the insurance contract at will. In a life insurance contract, once the applicant exercises this right and terminates the insurance contract, the insurer shall, in accordance with the law, return the cash value of the policy to the applicant within a certain period of time. In recent years, with the enhancement of people's insurance awareness and the recognition of the cash value of life insurance policies, attention has been paid to whether the person subjected to execution has taken out life insurance in civil enforcement cases. In enforcement cases, some applicants for enforcement have voluntarily requested the court to enforce the cash value of the life insurance policy of the person subjected to enforcement, while some courts have taken the initiative to take different enforcement measures against this emerging subject matter of enforcement. Some courts have incorporated insurance information into the enforcement data system. However, whether the cash value of a policy can be enforced as the subject matter of enforcement is not explicitly stipulated in Chinese law. In practice, different courts have different opinions. This article will briefly review and analyze the judicial practice of policy cash value enforcement in China, and summarize the latest judicial trends in policy cash value enforcement.

In the middle of 1989, the situation suddenly changed, and China's entry into the GATT process turned sharply downward.

On July 10, 2021, the Anti monopoly Bureau of the State Administration of Market Supervision announced the anti monopoly review decision on the merger between Tiger Tooth Company and Beta International Holdings Co., Ltd. According to the decision, the Anti monopoly Bureau decided to prohibit the merger transaction between Tiger Tooth Company and Beta International Holdings Co., Ltd. This case is the third publicly announced case of prohibition of business concentration transactions since the Anti monopoly Law came into effect, and it is also the first case of prohibition of business concentration related to the Internet field in China, as well as the first case of prohibition of business concentration related to domestic enterprises in China. Therefore, this case has a very important enlightenment for both Internet companies and domestic enterprises in China.