[Litigation] Filing of lawsuit for execution of shareholder rights confirmation and transfer of ownership.

Law firm Veat effectively defended the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by B Company (Plaintiff), who claimed that following the agreement of A Company (Defendant) to pay B Company shares as consideration for a brand introduction service contract, and subsequently demanded confirmation of shareholder rights and execution of name transfer.

Facts of the case and the origin of the case

A Company, trusting B Company’s experience and connections in hotel development and branding based on B Company’s C Hotel introduction experience and network during the construction of a resort, entered into a business agreement contract through the agreement. B Company agreed to pay A Company shares as consideration for the brand introduction service, and based on this agreement, a share transfer agreement was concluded, and A Company demanded confirmation of shareholder rights and execution of name transfer, filing a lawsuit.

However, there was no agreement on the share transfer within the service contract. Moreover, although the share transfer agreement repeatedly requested signatures while pointing out that B Company’s internal director was a formal procedure for brand introduction, it eventually achieved signatures, but this was for A Company to show its business capabilities, and it was difficult to conclude that there was actually an agreement on the transfer.

Veat’s Legal Action

Therefore, A Company entrusted Veat with the lawsuit execution, and Veat, based on the circumstances of the service contract and the share transfer agreement, and arguing 1) “the business agreement contract contained blank numbers of shares to be transferred, and there was no method to determine the number,” 2) “the contract was made by a non-shareholder, namely a proxy, which had no effect on the principal, and the burden of proof for proxy is on B Company,” 3) “even if the contract is valid, it can be voided by fraud and misrepresentation,” and 4) “the share transfer was not only based on contract execution, but also based on the previous intention to transfer shares, and since B Company did not express any intention to transfer shares after the contract execution, B Company’s claim based on accepting shares was without merit,” presented comprehensive legal arguments and evidence from a legal perspective.

Result

As a result, Veat was able to achieve the dismissal of the lawsuit by effectively defending B Company’s claims.

This case is significant because it meticulously investigated the circumstances of the share transfer agreement in a case where a share transfer agreement was formally drafted but lacked a genuine intention to transfer shares, and presented comprehensive legal arguments and evidence from a legal perspective, thereby preventing significant damage to A Company.