In July 2018, the Pudong branch of Bank of Shanghai, a custodian bank, was besieged by investors due to the disappearance of the private equity fund manager of Fuxing Group, which triggered extensive discussion on the boundaries of custodian liability. Interestingly, at that time, the official website of the Banking Association also "frightened" the Asset Management Association and expressed different opinions, and the impact of this incident on the bank's acceptance of custody business is still far-reaching.

The issue of corporate control is already a cliché, and it is also one of the necessary matters that every entrepreneur should and must consider in the early stage of entrepreneurship, but just when everyone felt good, the incident of Li Guoqing, the founder of Dangdang.com, once again taught everyone a very vivid lesson. For a time, it quickly occupied the headlines of various circles, and everyone also watched this gorgeous "regular palace fight" upgrade to "forcing the palace to seize power".

Recently, a low-key transaction has attracted the attention of competition law practitioners, which indicates that the anti-monopoly filing of enterprises involved in VIE structures has achieved a breakthrough. It also means that the policy position of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authorities on the declaration of VIE-related enterprises may have occurred or will change.

【Basic facts of the case】
Company A is the general contractor of a residential project, and Company B is its shareholder unit, and Company B, as a partner, carries out construction in the name of Company A. Fu is an employee of Company B, joined Company B in May 2014 and signed a labor contract with the company to engage in on-site management. Due to the needs of the cooperative project, on November 24, 2014, Fu was assigned by Company B to work in the residential project, and the corresponding qualification certificate was registered in the name of Company A for the implementation of the project. At the same time,

The Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, which will come into effect on May 1, 2020, adds a new provision on electronic evidence:

Lu Moumou is the secretary of the general manager of a company, keeping the bank card of the general manager on behalf of the general manager, and needs to fill the deficit due to the failure of stock speculation, and he takes out nearly 300,000 yuan in batches through the ATM machine, and takes it for himself. After the general manager discovered the case, the investigators summoned him to the police station for investigation, and Lu was criminally detained. Lu's family found the criminal defense team of our firm, and lawyers Liu Ruxiang and Wang Xi carried out active and effective defense work after accepting the entrustment, and finally the defendant Lu Moumou was given a reduced punishment and sentenced to three years in prison and four years of probation.

On October 24, 2019, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice issued the Guiding Opinions on the Application of the Leniency System for Pleas of Guilt, Punishment (Gao Procuratorate Fa [2019] No. 13, hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions"), which contains 60 articles, clarifying a number of controversial issues in judicial practice since the full implementation of the plea system. We believe that lawyers can achieve good defense results if they can accurately understand and apply them in criminal defense.

introduction
Equity incentive is a double-edged sword, which plays a positive role in attracting, retaining and motivating talent, improving the company's performance and improving the company's core competitiveness, but may also bring risks to the company. For example, during the implementation of equity incentive or when terminating an equity incentive plan, it is easy to cause disputes between the company and the incentive recipients, and even lead to labor arbitration or litigation cases, so that the company and the incentive recipients are caught in litigation.

20In the early 90s of the century, in order to solve the outstanding problems such as insufficient development momentum in state-owned enterprises and state-owned enterprise employees eating "big pot rice", the state began to promote and deepen the reform of state-owned enterprises, and one of the important measures was to take the lead in introducing the equity incentive system in state-owned enterprises. In 2006, with the promulgation of relevant laws and regulations, the equity incentives of state-controlled listed companies have been followed by laws and have entered the track of rapid development. However, equity incentives have not played their expected role in state-owned non-listed companies, and even due to the imperfect relevant laws and policies, coupled with strict state-owned asset supervision and cumbersome approval procedures, equity incentives have become a system design that state-owned non-listed companies dare not touch. So, under the current conditions, is the equity incentive of state-owned non-listed companies suitable for implementation and how can it be implemented? This article will attempt to explore the above questions.