Fujian Zhongfu industrial co., ltd.

At present, the "one-size-fits-all" judgment on the effectiveness of related guarantee in judicial practice means that as long as a listed company provides a guarantee for its shareholders, it is deemed invalid according to Article 63 of the Company Law and Article 4 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee Law. Specifically, as long as the debtor is a shareholder of the guarantor when signing the guarantee contract, no matter whether it is a minority shareholder or a controlling shareholder, and no matter how long the debtor has been a shareholder, the guarantee contract is invalid. [30] However, for other related guarantee situations, such as mutual guarantee by related companies, the guarantee is valid as long as there are no other situations in which the contract is invalid. The judgment of a series of loan disputes surrounding the listed company Xingye Real Estate is proof. The plaintiffs (creditors) of these disputes are different banks, and the defendants (debtors and guarantors) are three companies, namely Shanghai Textile Housing Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Textile Development Corporation"), Shanghai Xingye Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xingye Real Estate") and Shanghai Xunfa Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xunfa Real Estate"). The legal representatives of these three companies are the same person, among which the textile development company is a shareholder of Xunfa Real Estate, and the textile development company was once a shareholder of Xingye Real Estate (200 1, 1 no longer holds shares after selling Xingye shares). In the case of the plaintiff Shanghai Bank Women's Sub-branch v. the three defendants' loan contract dispute, the court ruled that the guarantee contract provided by Xunfa Real Estate for its shareholders' debts was invalid, because the textile development company was the shareholder of Xunfa Real Estate, and the guarantee provided by Xingye Company for its original shareholders was valid, because the textile development company was no longer the shareholder of Xingye Real Estate when the contract was signed. [3 1] In the case of plaintiff Shanghai Bank Cao An Branch v. defendant Textile Development Company and defendant Xingye Real Estate Loan Contract, the court ruled that the guarantee contract was invalid because the textile development company was still the shareholder of Xingye Real Estate when the contract was signed. [32] In the case of the plaintiff Shanghai Bank Yan 'an Sub-branch v. the defendant Xunfa Real Estate and the defendant Xingye Real Estate loan contract dispute, the court ruled that the guarantee provided by the defendant Xingye Real Estate for the defendant Xunfa Real Estate was effective, despite the inextricable relationship between the two defendants. [33] In the case of the plaintiff Shanghai Bank Bund Sub-branch v. the three defendants' loan contract dispute, the court held that since the textile development company was a shareholder of Xunfa Real Estate, the guarantee provided by Xunfa Real Estate for its shareholders' debts was invalid. In the case that the textile development company is a shareholder of Xingye Real Estate, it is invalid for Xingye Real Estate to provide joint and several liability guarantee for disputed loans. However, when Xingye Real Estate signed the loan extension contract, it signed the loan extension contract and promised to fulfill the guarantee responsibility, which should be valid.