The guarantee period, the limitation of action for guaranteed debts, and the limitation of action for principal debts are all related to a certain period, and there are countless internal connections among the three. Before the Civil Code came into force, China's "Guarantee Law" and "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the" Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China "did not explicitly stipulate the concept of" guarantee period ". The relevant provisions of the Guarantee Law also confuse the relationship between the guarantee period and the guarantee debt litigation. Therefore, in both academic and theoretical terms, there are many disputes regarding the understanding and application of these three legal concepts, and the related judicial cases of guaranteed debt have also been one of the difficult issues in judicial trials. The introduction of the Civil Code clarifies the concept of "guarantee period" and clarifies the connections and differences between the above legal concepts. Based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and a legend, the author will attempt to clarify and elaborate the meaning, connection, and distinction of the guarantee period, the limitation of action for guaranteed debts, and the limitation of action for principal debts.

Recently, five independent directors of Kangmei Pharmaceutical were sentenced to 369 million yuan of joint and several civil liability by the Guangzhou Intermediate Court of Justice, triggering widespread social repercussions. The mainstream view seems to be that vase directors deserve their crimes, and severe punishment is conducive to making an example of others; "Heavenly priced compensation is not enough to regret, and even to celebrate.". The viewpoint of this article is that under the current system design framework, requiring independent directors to bear sky-high civil compensation may be detrimental to the construction of the independent director system of listed companies in China. In subsequent civil compensation cases, the CSI Small and Medium Investors Service Center may avoid or prudently handle the group of independent directors who are prosecuted. The reasons are as follows.

Editor's Note: This year marks the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the WTO. The predecessor of the WTO was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which had been in operation for 46 years. The history of China and GATT/WTO is tortuous and tortuous. China is a founding contracting party to the GATT. After the founding of New China in 1949, the Taiwan authorities announced their "withdrawal" from the GATT in 1950. In 1965, the Taiwan authorities participated in the GATT activities as observers. After the restoration of China's seat in the General Assembly in 1971, the GATT invited representatives of the Taiwan authorities to leave. In 1986, China applied to restore its seat as a contracting party to the GATT. In 1995, the GATT was replaced by the WTO. In that year, China applied to join the WTO, and until the end of negotiations in 2001, it became a member of the WTO.

Editor's Note: This year marks the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the WTO. The predecessor of the WTO was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which had been in operation for 46 years. The history of China and GATT/WTO is tortuous and tortuous. China is a founding contracting party to the GATT. After the founding of New China in 1949, the Taiwan authorities announced their "withdrawal" from the GATT in 1950. In 1965, the Taiwan authorities participated in the GATT activities as observers. After the restoration of China's seat in the General Assembly in 1971, the GATT invited representatives of the Taiwan authorities to leave. In 1986, China applied to restore its seat as a contracting party to the GATT. In 1995, the GATT was replaced by the WTO. In that year, China applied to join the WTO, and until the end of negotiations in 2001, it became a member of the WTO.

In the early 1990s, in order to address the prominent problems of insufficient development momentum in state-owned enterprises and the "big pot meal" of state-owned enterprise employees, the country began to promote and deepen the restructuring of state-owned enterprises. One important measure was to take the lead in introducing equity incentive systems in state-owned enterprises. In 2006, with the successive introduction of relevant laws and regulations, equity incentives for state-owned listed companies have laws to follow and have entered a rapid development track. However, for a long time, equity incentive has not played its expected role in state-owned and non listed companies. Even due to the previous lack of sound relevant laws and policies, coupled with strict supervision of state-owned assets and cumbersome approval procedures, equity incentive has become a system design that state-owned and non listed companies dare not touch. So, under current conditions, is it appropriate to implement equity incentives in state-owned non listed companies and how to implement them? This article will try to explore the above issues.

There are many differences in the work of criminal lawyers and other professional lawyers, but I think the biggest difference lies in the complexity of criminal proceedings. On the one hand, complex procedures are reflected in the fact that a case needs to go through several different litigation links and steps, and on the other hand, there are more judicial organs involved in the process. Therefore, criminal lawyers spend a lot of time and energy communicating with judicial personnel, through which they can carry out their work and achieve effective results.

On September 8, 2021, the First Management Department of Listed Companies of the National Equities Exchange Corporation issued a warning letter to the New Third Board Company, Asia Pacific Tianneng, and relevant responsible entities, confirming that the company had not fully disclosed to investors in the "Indicative Announcement on Preparing for Public Offering of Shares and Listing on the Stock Exchange" disclosed earlier Fully disclosing the fact that its financial data does not comply with the financial indicators specified in the "Beijing Stock Exchange Stock Listing Rules (for Trial Implementation)" (draft for comment) and the "National Hierarchical Management Measures for Small and Medium Enterprise Share Transfer System" constitutes a violation of information disclosure, and it is decided to take self-discipline and regulatory measures against the company and relevant responsible entities. The decision of the National Equities Exchange Corporation on this self-regulatory regulatory measure for Asia Pacific Tianneng is the first time since the establishment of the Beijing Stock Exchange that it has made a decision on punishment for information disclosure violations by referring to the supporting rules of the Beijing Stock Exchange. It also reflects the determination of regulatory authorities to crack down on information disclosure violations. Information disclosure, as the core content of China's securities market registration system reform, particularly emphasizes that securities issuers should truthfully, accurately, and completely disclose information that should be disclosed according to law, to improve the transparency of the securities market. So, what specific requirements does the Beijing Stock Exchange have for information disclosure of qualified companies on the New Third Board that do need to be publicly listed on the Beijing Stock Exchange? This article intends to explore this issue with reference to the provisions of the Beijing Stock Exchange on information disclosure obligations.

Recently, there have been media reports that some enterprises have violated laws such as "996", "007", and "big and small weeks". "996" refers to workers who go to work at 9 a.m. and leave work at 9 p.m. every day, working six days a week. "007" refers to a flexible working system in which workers are on standby 24 hours a week from 0 to 0, without rest 7 days a week. "Large and small weeks" refers to a working system of alternating cycles of 5 days a week and 6 days a week.

1、 Team work dynamics
Lawyer Li Rong wrote "The Generalization and Limitation of Judicial Application of the Crime of Throwing Objects from High Altitude", which was included in the Proceedings of the Forum of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences