Long Ming (3018, formerly known as Tongkai) broke out in a battle for management rights.

(From Longming Green Energy website)

[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] A battle broke out for the management rights of the listed company Longming Green Energy Technology Engineering (3108), unable to announce and report financial reports on time, resulting in the stock exchange being suspended from trading in the centralized trading market. Chairman Xu Jianlong proposed a temporary status The disciplinary lawsuit requested the court to order the legal person shareholder "Yang Mingchun" with 3 directors to reassign another person to act as the representative.

Xu Jianlong filed a lawsuit claiming that Yangming Spring reassigned director representatives on August 12 and 15, took advantage of the majority of director seats after the reassignment, held an interim board meeting on September 21, dismissed him as chairman, and re-elected Peng Guolun as director length, but was rejected by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to change the application.

He convened the board meeting on November 14, 15, and 16. None of the directors of Yangming Spring attended the meeting. As a result, Longming was unable to announce and declare its third-quarter financial report, and the stock exchange stopped trading in the centralized trading market.

Please read on...

Xu Jianlong believes that this action endangers Longming's operation and there is a risk that his stock will go off the market. If he is dismissed, he will lose his monthly remuneration of 250,000 yuan. He ordered Yang Mingchun to reassign the 3 people he designated as directors, and not to reassign anyone other than his designated directors.

Yang Mingchun advocated that the board of directors convened by Xu Jianlong on August 12 and 15 had not provided sufficient discussion materials, and many of the bills listed had doubts about the law. This is the legal exercise of the director's powers.

Yang Mingchun emphasized that if the court prohibits them from exercising their powers as directors, it will cause great damage to Yangming Chuntian and Long Ming, and there is no need for a temporary sanction in this case, let alone granting emergency treatment.

The Taipei District Court of first instance rejected Xu Jianlong's appeal, but Xu Jianlong refused to accept it and filed a protest.

The High Court of Second Instance pointed out that directors have the responsibility to review and approve the announced and declared financial reports in detail, otherwise they may be liable for damages. Therefore, directors cannot be required to approve all financial reports submitted to the board of directors , without any comments.

Therefore, whether Longming was unable to announce and file the third quarter financial report, and the stock exchange stopped the stock exchange’s responsibility, whether it can be attributed to the fact that the three directors reassigned by Yangming Spring did not attend the board meeting convened by Xu Jianlong, needs to be verified through this document It is really doubtful to ask to prevent Long Ming from being damaged.

The High Court emphasized that this case involved a dispute over the management rights of Long Ming, and Xu Jianlong's burden of proof should be further strengthened. However, based on the evidence and materials submitted by Xu, it is still difficult to recognize that he can obtain guaranteed benefits or avoid damages due to the provisional status of the case. , far greater than the disadvantages or damages suffered by Yangmingchun due to the disposition.

The High Court stated that after considering all the damages suffered by the two parties, the balance of interests, the impact on Long Ming or other interested parties, and the public interest, it is still unable to determine that Xu Jianlong’s claims have fulfilled the responsibility of explanation, that is, there is no need for preservation , no emergency treatment is necessary.

To sum up, the High Court held that the evidence and materials submitted by Xu Jianlong could not explain how this document could prevent major damage, avoid imminent danger, or other similar situations, and that it was necessary to preserve it. Insufficient clarification”, after the review, it is ruled to reject, except for the grounds that there are obvious errors in the applicable regulations, no further appeals are allowed.