Limited Liability

Kuntner, Stephan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54181-1_8

Stephan Kuntner⁹

Part of the book series: China-EU Law Series ((CELS,volume 7))

259 Accesses

Abstract

The second core element of a standard corporate form is limited liability. It provides a default term in contracts between a FILPE and its creditors whereby the creditors are limited to making claims against assets which are owned by the FILPE itself, and have no claim against assets which the FILPE’s owners hold in their own name. This is analysed for the general and limited partner in a FILPE. Chinese law permits the mitigation of the effect of unlimited liability of the general partner by utilising a corporate general partner. However, this is analysed in detail by investigating which corporations qualify as a general partner and to what degree conflict between laws provisions or the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil may still lead to unlimited liability of the investor behind the corporate general partner. Exceptions also apply to the limitation of a limited partner’s liability, which are analysed in detail. In addition, investors should be aware of a number of special liability scenarios which may occur during the lifecycle of a FILPE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Armour et al. (2017b), p. 8.
2.
Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 394.
3.
Armour et al. (2017b), p. 9.
4.
ibid, p. 9.
5.
ibid, p. 9 fn. 33; Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 429.
6.
Posner (2014), p. 539.
7.
Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 429.
8.
ibid, p. 429.
9.
ibid, p. 429.
10.
Armour et al. (2017b), pp. 8–9.
11.
For a detailed discussion of these advantages see with further references: Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), pp. 423–427; Ribstein (1988), pp. 840–847.
12.
Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 427.
13.
Armour et al. (2017b), p. 9.
14.
ibid, p. 9.
15.
ibid, p. 9.
16.
ibid, p. 9.
17.
ibid, p. 9.
18.
ibid, p. 9.
19.
Armour et al. (2009), p. 10.
20.
In addition, limited liability enables delegated management because limited liability can effectively shift some of the burden of monitoring the firm’s managers from the firm’s owners to its creditors. ‘If creditors know that they have recourse only to assets held by the firm, they are more likely than they otherwise would be to scrutinise closely – both before and after extending credit – the likely fortunes of the firm and the behaviour of the firm’s managers’ (Hansmann and Kraakman 2000, p. 425).
21.
Armour et al. (2009), p. 10; Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 425.
22.
Hansmann and Kraakman (2000), p. 425.
23.
Ribstein (1988), p. 841.
24.
ibid, p. 841.
25.
ibid, p. 841.
26.
ibid, pp. 841–842.
27.
Yu et al. (2012b), pp. 10–11.
28.
Ribstein (1988), p. 840.
29.
It should be emphasised that the analysis of limited liability here specifically means limited liability in contract—that is, limited liability to creditors who have contractual claims on the corporation. The compelling reasons for limited liability in contract generally do not extend to limited liability in tort. See also, Armour et al. (2017b), p. 9.
30.
Ribstein (1988), p. 841.
31.
ibid, p. 841.
32.
ibid, p. 841.
33.
ibid, p. 841.
34.
ibid, p. 841.
35.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 166.
36.
Gao (高富平) et al. (1997), p. 226.
37.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 58.
38.
Art. 20 PEL.
39.
Li (李新) (2006b), p. 128.
40.
See Sect. 8.4.5.
41.
Circumstances under which a limited partner has to bear unlimited liability, are discussed in Sect. 8.3.2.1.
42.
Ye (2002), p. 91.
43.
Foster and Sule (2010), p. 548.
44.
Art. 110 Para. 1 HGB; Schmidt (2002), pp. 1435–1437.
45.
Ye (2002), p. 91.
46.
Ma (马强) (1997), p. 57.
47.
Art. 39 in conjunction with Art. 2 Para. 3 PEL.
48.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 60.
49.
ibid, p. 60.
50.
Gao (高富平) et al. (1997), p. 232.
51.
Ye (2002), pp. 90–91.
52.
ibid, p. 91.
53.
ibid, p. 90.
54.
Joint and several liability is regulated in Article 87 GPCL/ Article 178 GRCL. See Ye (2002), p. 91.
55.
Schmidt (2002), pp. 1421–1423.
56.
Ye (2002), p. 92.
57.
Gao (高富平) et al. (1997), p. 235.
58.
See Sect. 7.1.1.2.
59.
See Sect. 7.1.1.2.
60.
See Sect. 1.1.
61.
See Sect. 4.1.4.3.
62.
Zhu (朱慈蕴) (2008), pp. 77–78.
63.
See Sect. 1.1.
64.
For an account of the development in US partnership law, see Schaper (2013), p. 83; Wu and Geu (2007–2008), pp. 165–167; Johnson (1979), pp. 271–287.
65.
For an account of the development in UK partnership law, see Banks (2017), pp. 4.20–4.21; Schaper (2013), pp. 94–97.
66.
Wiedemann (2004), p. 71.
67.
Schaper (2013), p. 98.
68.
ibid, p. 99.
69.
ibid, p. 99.
70.
Yuantao et al. (1989), p. 57.
71.
See Sect. 4.2.1.2.
72.
Zhu (朱慈蕴) (2008), p. 77.
73.
Chen (2016), p. 657.
74.
Huang (黄毅诚) (1997), p. 14.
75.
Li (厉以宁) (1997), pp. 17–18.
76.
Julius and Bitter (2005), pp. 62–63.
77.
Zhu (朱慈蕴) (2008), p. 79.
78.
Cao (曹德斌) and Zhang (张小奕) (2017), foreword p. 1; Yan (严义埙) (2006), p. 597.
79.
Yan (严义埙) (2006), p. 597.
80.
Lin and Yeo (2010), p. 106.
81.
See Sect. 8.2.2.3.
82.
Lin and Yeo (2010), p. 106.
83.
Zhu (朱慈蕴) (2008), p. 81.
84.
ibid, p. 83.
85.
ibid, p. 83.
86.
ibid, p. 83.
87.
ibid, p. 77.
88.
Hansmann et al. (2005), p. 13.
89.
Art. 6 Para. 2 FIPE Provisions.
90.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 6.
91.
ibid, p. 6.
92.
Zhu (朱慈蕴) (2008), pp. 78–79; Hong (洪虎) (2006), pp. 354, 355.
93.
Lin and Yeo (2010), p. 104.
94.
ibid, p. 104.
95.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 167.
96.
ibid, 167.
97.
ibid, p. 167.
98.
Lin and Yeo (2010), pp. 104–105; Weng and Xia (2007), p. 97.
99.
Werthwein (2010), p. 47.
100.
Lin and Yeo (2010), pp. 104–105; Weng and Xia (2007), p. 97.
101.
See the discussion in Sect. 8.2.2.2.2.
102.
Art. 2 FIPE Measures.
103.
Teichmann (2014), pp. 222–223.
104.
Schaper (2013), p. 103.
105.
ibid, p. 103.
106.
ibid, p. 103.
107.
For a detailed account of the discussion in Germany, see Schläfke (2013), pp. 62–78.
108.
European Court of Justice, Case C-212/97, Centros [1999], ECR 1999 I-1459; European Court of Justice, Case C-20/00, Überseering [2002], ECR 2002 I-9919; European Court of Justice, Case C-167/01, Inspire Art. [2003], ECR 2003 I-10155.
109.
Schläfke (2013), pp. 68–75.
110.
ibid, pp. 75–76.
111.
Raiser and Veil (2015), pp. 657–658; Schläfke (2013), pp. 76–77.
112.
Schaper (2013), pp. 111–112.
113.
Teichmann (2014), p. 227.
114.
Arts. 2-3 FIPE Measures; Art. 2 Para. 1 FIPE Provisions.
115.
Art. 2 Draft FIPE Measures.
116.
Art. 2 FIPE Measures.
117.
Art. 8 Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law; Chen (2014), p. 54.
118.
Bu (2017), p. 191. See also the discussion in Sect. 4.1.3.2.
119.
Regarding limitations on who can act as Chinese general partner, see also Sect. 9.2.1.2.1.
120.
This follows from Article 14, Paragraph 1 Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law, which stipulates that the applicable law shall govern the issues of legal capacity, the capacity to act, the organisational structure, shareholders’ rights and obligations, and other related matters of a legal person.
121.
Regarding the conflict of laws regime in China, see Sect. 4.1.9.4.
122.
Article 14, Paragraph 1 Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law uses the expression ‘place of registration’. Since the concept of registration has a very broad meaning in Chinese law and includes establishment registration, alteration registration, write-off registration, and registration of branch companies, the SPC Interpretation of the Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law clarified in Article 16 that ‘place of registration’ refers to the ‘place of incorporation’ of a legal person (Du 2014, p. 342).
123.
Du (2014), pp. 341–342, 348.
124.
ibid, p. 342.
125.
ibid, p. 336.
126.
ibid, p. 336.
127.
ibid, p. 336.
128.
ibid, p. 337.
129.
ibid, p. 337.
130.
ibid, pp. 337–338.
131.
ibid, p. 338.
132.
See Sect. 4.1.9.4.
133.
Regarding the legislative motives and history, see Sect. 4.1.5.1.
134.
Huang (2014), p. 7.
135.
The interpretation refers to Article 142, Paragraph 2 GPCL, which states that ‘[i]f any international treaty concluded or acceded to by the PRC contains provisions differing from those in the civil laws of the PRC, the provisions of the international treaty shall apply, unless the provisions are ones on which the PRC has announced reservations.’
136.
See the table at Du (2014), p. 336. For an introduction, see also Pang (2013), pp. 1–3.
137.
Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排), signed by the governments of the PRC and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 29 June 2003.
138.
Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement – Agreement on Trade in Services (内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排 –服务贸易协议), signed by the governments of the PRC and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 27 November 2015 and effective as of 1 June 2016.
139.
Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement – Investment Agreement (内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排 –投资协议) signed by the governments of the PRC and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 28 June 2017 and effective as of 1 January 2018.
140.
For more details, see Wang (2004), pp. 647–666.
141.
Art. 12 Para. 2 CEPA in conjunction with Art. 2 Para. 3 and Art. 3 of Annex 5 to CEPA.
142.
Art. 2 Para. 4 Agreement on Trade in Services in conjunction with Art. 2 Para. 3 and Art. 3 of Annex 3 to the Agreement on Trade in Services; Art. 2 Para. 2 Investment Agreement in conjunction with Art. 1 of Annex 1 to the Investment Agreement.
143.
Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the PRC on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, concluded on 1 December 2003 and effective as of 11 November 2005, published at the Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt), 2005 Part II, pp. 732–742.
144.
Art. 1 Para. 1 (b) German-Chinese Bilateral Investment Treaty.
145.
Kindler (2018), pp. 1696–1697; Art. 4 SPC Interpretation of the Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law.
146.
Art. 1 Para. 2 (b) German-Chinese Bilateral Investment Treaty.
147.
Art. 1 Para. 2 (a) German-Chinese Bilateral Investment Treaty.
148.
Lüke (2016), para. 2.497–2.501.
149.
Kindler (2018), p. 1784.
150.
ibid, pp. 1784–1785.
151.
Lüke (2016), para. 2.497.
152.
See Sect. 8.2.2.1.
153.
Teichmann (2014), p. 228.
154.
Kindler (2018), p. 1785.
155.
Art. 8 Draft FIPE Measures.
156.
Art. 8 Para. 3 Draft FIPE Measures.
157.
Xu (徐春雷) and Cao (曹秀峰) (2007), pp. 29–30.
158.
Paul Hastings (2009), p. 2.
159.
Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds (私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法), promulgated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission on 21 August 2014 with effect as of the same day.
160.
The investment restrictions that govern a FILPE are analysed in Sect. 4.1.7.
161.
Arts. 2-3 FIPE Measures; Art. 2 Para. 1 FIPE Provisions.
162.
Taking the title of the WFOE Law for example, ‘外资企业法’.
163.
See Sect. 3.2.3.
164.
See Sect. 3.2.3.2.
165.
Pissler (2010), p. 129.
166.
Art. 47 FIL Implementing Regulations.
167.
See Sect. 4.1.9.4.
168.
See Sect. 8.2.2.2.1.
169.
See Sect. 9.4.2.7.
170.
See Sect. 7.2.2.
171.
See Sect. 8.2.2.1.
172.
Teichmann (2014), p. 220.
173.
Huang et al. (2009), pp. 725–733; Wang (2007), p. 366.
174.
Chen (2014), p. 57.
175.
ibid, p. 57; Du (2014), p. 345.
176.
Chen (2014), p. 57.
177.
Art. 10 SPC Interpretation of the Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law.
178.
Art. 10 SPC Interpretation of the Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law.
179.
Du (2014), p. 345.
180.
Tang et al. (2016), p. 42.
181.
ibid, p. 42.
182.
Art. 10 SPC Interpretation of the Foreign-Related Civil Relations Law.
183.
Tang et al. (2016), p. 43.
184.
Hübner (2014), p. 199.
185.
Tang et al. (2016), p. 43.
186.
Xaio and Huo (2005), p. 653.
187.
ibid, p. 654.
188.
Hübner (2014), p. 105; Xaio and Huo (2005), p. 654.
189.
Chen (2014), p. 60.
190.
Xaio and Huo (2005), p. 659.
191.
Hübner (2014), p. 107.
192.
Xaio and Huo (2005), p. 672.
193.
Hübner (2014), p. 113.
194.
ibid, p. 113.
195.
ibid, p. 114.
196.
Xaio and Huo (2005), p. 672.
197.
ibid, p. 676.
198.
Hübner (2014), pp. 110–112.
199.
Tang et al. (2016), p. 244.
200.
ibid, 244.
201.
ibid, p. 244.
202.
Basedow (2014), p. 95.
203.
ibid, p. 95.
204.
Hübner (2014), p. 210.
205.
Basedow (2014), p. 96.
206.
ibid, p. 96.
207.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 167.
208.
Huang (2012), p. 744.
209.
Ratigan (1983), p. 963.
210.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), pp. 167–168.
211.
Shen (2015), p. 72; Huang (2012), p. 744.
212.
Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 262–265; instructive: Veil (2008), pp. 3264–3266; Veil (2006), pp. 103–121.
213.
Shen (2015), p. 72.
214.
Armour et al. (2017a), p. 269.
215.
Huang (2012), p. 744.
216.
ibid, p. 744.
217.
ibid, p. 744.
218.
For a detailed account, see Shen (2015), pp. 67–70.
219.
Shen (2015), p. 76.
220.
ibid, p. 76.
221.
Ratigan (1983), p. 949.
222.
ibid, p. 965.
223.
Schaper (2013), p. 105; Ratigan (1983), p. 949.
224.
Kindler (2018), p. 1814.
225.
Shen (2015), p. 76.
226.
Hebei Yixing Highway Co Ltd v Jingyu Highway Co Ltd et al, credit agreement dispute (河北冀星高速公路有限公司与京域高速公路有限公司等借款合同纠纷民事裁定书), Supreme People’s Court of the PRC, Case No 2011/289 (最高人民法院 (2011) 民申字第289号), judgment date: 24 May 2011, available at http://www.court.gov.cn/wenshu/xiangqing-3290.html, accessed 15 May 2020.
227.
Du (2014), p. 347.
228.
ibid, p. 346.
229.
See Sect. 8.2.2.2.3.
230.
Du (2014), p. 347.
231.
ibid, p. 346.
232.
Shen (2015), p. 74.
233.
Article 20, Paragraph 3 Company Law reads: ‘Where the shareholder of a company abuses the independent legal person status of the company or the limited liability of shareholders, evades debts and thus seriously damages the interests of the creditors of the company, the shareholder shall bear joint liability for the debts of the company.’
234.
Werthwein (2010), p. 42.
235.
Huang (2012), pp. 744–745.
236.
For more detail regarding the elements intent and consequence, see Huang (2012), p. 759.
237.
Huang (2012), p. 760.
238.
ibid, p. 760.
239.
ibid, p. 760.
240.
Regarding the undercapitalisation of Chinese corporations, see Shen and Watters (2014–2015), p. 497.
241.
Huang (2012), pp. 760–761.
242.
For a detailed account, see: Shen (2015), pp. 71–75.
243.
Shen (2015), p. 74.
244.
Huang (2012), p. 763.
245.
Article 63 Company Law reads: ‘If the shareholder of a one-person limited liability company is unable to prove that the property of the one-person limited liability company is independent from his own property, he shall bear joint and several liabilities for the debts of the company.’
246.
Art. 57 Para. 2 Company Law.
247.
Huang (2012), p. 746.
248.
Shen (2015), p. 75.
249.
Werthwein (2010), p. 42.
250.
Huang (2012), p. 746.
251.
Wang (2014), p. 83.
252.
Shen (2015), p. 72.
253.
ibid, p. 72.
254.
Shen and Watters (2014–2015), p. 498.
255.
Art. 65 PEL.
256.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 158.
257.
Callison and Sullivan (2017), § 23:1.
258.
For German law, Article 161, Paragraph 1 and Article 171, Paragraph 1 HGB; for US law, Section 303 (a) ULPA.
259.
Art. 67 and Art. 68 Para. 1 PEL; Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 110.
260.
Yu et al. (2012a), p. 11.
261.
Callison and Sullivan (2017), § 23:1.
262.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 158.
263.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 110.
264.
Zhang (2017), pp. 238–239; Lin (2013), p. 187.
265.
Zhang (2017), pp. 238–239; Lin (2013), p. 193; Zhang and Du (2014), p. II-5.1.9.
266.
Lin (2013), p. 194.
267.
ibid, p. 195.
268.
ibid, pp. 196–201. Lin further analyses whether special legal rules in the PEL or contractual provisions in the partnership agreement could help in solving the active-investor problem in China, pp. 201–213.
269.
Lin (2013), pp. 196–197.
270.
ibid, p. 216.
271.
ibid, pp. 197–198.
272.
See in more detail: Lin (2011), pp. 201–230.
273.
Lin (2013), pp. 198–200.
274.
ibid, pp. 200–201.
275.
Zhang (2017), p. 240.
276.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 111.
277.
ibid, p. 111.
278.
Lin (2013), p. 201.
279.
Regarding the joining and withdrawing of partners, see the analysis in Sect. 9.3.1.
280.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 111.
281.
ibid, p. 111.
282.
ibid, p. 111.
283.
ibid, p. 112.
284.
ibid, p. 112.
285.
ibid, p. 112. Regarding the derivative action of a limited partner, see Lin (2011), pp. 201–230.
286.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 112.
287.
Lin (2013), pp. 185–186. Regarding the US model-law ULPA, however, the concept of the control rule and safe harbour list has been abolished in 2001. For a detailed analysis, see Bishop (2004), pp. 667–717.
288.
Lin and Yeo (2010), pp. 104–105.
289.
Weng and Xia (2007), p. 97.
290.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 123.
291.
ibid, p. 123.
292.
Lin (2013), p. 205. In more detail regarding the estoppel rule in the US, see Bishop (2004), pp. 667–717.
293.
Binz and Sorge (2018), p. 73. Regarding detail on the Rechtsscheinhaftung in German law, see Roth (2020a), § 128 Para. 5; Hopt (2020), § 5 Para. 9–17.
294.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 123.
295.
Lin and Yeo (2010), pp. 104–105.
296.
ibid, pp. 104–105.
297.
ibid, p. 105.
298.
Regarding the similar discussion under US law, see Ratigan (1983), pp. 949–951.
299.
Lin and Yeo (2010), pp. 104–105.
300.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 124.
301.
ibid, p. 124.
302.
See Sect. 8.2.2.1.
303.
Zhang (2017), pp. 234–235.
304.
Wang (2014), p. 82.
305.
ibid, p. 82.
306.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 156.
307.
ibid, p. 124.
308.
ibid, p. 124.
309.
ibid, p. 124.
310.
Zhang (2017), pp. 238–240.
311.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 168.
312.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 168.
313.
ibid, p. 168.
314.
Ratigan (1983), p. 965.
315.
ibid, p. 949.
316.
ULPA 2001 eliminated the so-called ‘control rule’, which made a limited partner personally liable for the obligations of the partnership enterprise to varying degrees if the limited partner took part in the management and control of the partnership enterprise’s affairs like a general partner. For more detail, see Bishop (2004), pp. 667–717.
317.
Instructive: Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 264–265; Schmidt (2002), pp. 1552–1553.
318.
Schmidt (2002), pp. 1552–1553.
319.
See Sect. 8.2.2.3.
320.
Art. 17 FIPE Provisions, see also Sect. 4.1.8.3.
321.
Binz and Sorge (2018), p. 41.
322.
Art. 1 Para. 2, Art. 2 and Art. 105 Para. 2 HGB. For more detail, see Schmidt (2002), pp. 1629–1630.
323.
Art. 124 Para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 161 Para. 2 HGB and Art. 128 HGB; Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 33–34.
324.
Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 70–72.
325.
ibid, p. 34.
326.
ibid, p. 34. Instructive regarding the liability in the German Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts, see Schmidt (2002), pp. 1787–1806.
327.
Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 34–36.
328.
ibid, p. 34.
329.
Art. 51 Para. 1 FIPE Provisions in conjunction with Art. 36 Partnership Enterprise Registration Measures.
330.
See Sect. 4.2.1.2.
331.
Ye reaches the same conclusion (Ye 2002, p. 30).
332.
Feuerstein and Duan (2016), p. 203.
333.
ibid, p. 203.
334.
Third Interpretation of Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the ‘PRC Company Law’ (适用《中华人民共和国公司法》若干问题的规定(三)), promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court on 27 January 2011 and amended on 20 February 2014 with effect as of 1 March 2014.
335.
Art. 1 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
336.
Art. 2 Para. 1 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
337.
Art. 2 Para. 2 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
338.
Feuerstein and Duan (2016), p. 204.
339.
Art. 3 Para. 1 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
340.
Art. 4 Para. 1 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
341.
Art. 4 Paras. 2 and 3 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
342.
Art. 5 Para. 1 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
343.
Art. 5 Para. 2 Third SPC Interpretation of the Company Law.
344.
For the liability of a German GmbH before its establishment, see Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 36–39.
345.
See Sect. 9.3.
346.
Article 77 PEL reads that ‘[a] new limited partner shall, with regard to the debts of the partnership enterprise before he joins the partnership enterprise, bear liability to the extent of his subscribed amount of capital contribution.’
347.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), pp. 70; 125–126.
348.
ibid, p. 70.
349.
ibid, p. 70.
350.
Regarding German law, see Roth (2020b), § 130 Para. 9; Roth (2020c), § 173 Para. 10.
351.
Article 130 HGB for the general partner and Article 173 HGB for the limited partner.
352.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 70.
353.
Lin (2010), p. 264; Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 165.
354.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 165.
355.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), pp. 70, 125.
356.
ibid, p. 70.
357.
See Sect. 7.1.1.2.
358.
Lin (2010), p. 265.
359.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 165.
360.
See Sect. 8.2.1.
361.
Roth (2020b), § 130 Para. 1.
362.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 87.
363.
ibid, p. 87.
364.
ibid, p. 87.
365.
Ye (2002), p. 128.
366.
Binz and Sorge (2018), p. 158.
367.
Ye (2002), p. 128.
368.
ibid, p. 128.
369.
ibid, p. 128.
370.
Art. 91 PEL. See also the subsequent analysis in Sect. 8.4.3.
371.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), pp. 144–145.
372.
ibid, pp. 144–145.
373.
ibid, pp. 144–145.
374.
ibid, pp. 144–145.
375.
Art. 188 GRCL. Under Article 135 GPCL, the statute of limitation was 2 years only.
376.
Binz and Sorge (2018), p. 159.
377.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 130.
378.
ibid, p. 134.
379.
ibid, p. 133.
380.
ibid, p. 133.
381.
ibid, p. 133.
382.
Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 156–159.
383.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 133.
384.
Wu and Geu (2007–2008), p. 164.
385.
For a detailed analysis regarding the transfer of a partner’s share of the property in the partnership enterprise, see Chap. 9.
386.
Schmidt (2002), pp. 1320–1321.
387.
See Sect. 9.3.2.2.
388.
See Sect. 8.4.2.
389.
Art. 2 Para. 3, Art. 65 PEL. See Sect. 8.3.1.
390.
Schmidt (2002), p. 1590.
391.
Art. 64 Contract Law.
392.
Art. 65 Contract Law.
393.
Schmidt (2002), p. 1590.
394.
See Sect. 9.4.2.3.
395.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 68.
396.
Schmidt (2002), pp. 1590–1592.
397.
Schmidt (1992), pp. 909–910.
398.
See Sect. 8.4.2.
399.
See the analysis in Sect. 9.4.2.7.
400.
Werthwein (2010), p. 51.
401.
Art. 90 PEL. Regarding a detailed analysis of the dissolution and liquidation process, see Sect. 9.2.2.
402.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 144.
403.
ibid, p. 144.
404.
ibid, p. 144.
405.
Schmidt (2002), p. 1524.
406.
Ye (2002), p. 140.
407.
Art. 159 Para. 2 HGB.
408.
Schmidt (2002), pp. 1524–1525.
409.
Art. 87 Paras. 2 and 4 in conjunction with Art. 64 Para. 1 and Art. 2 Para. 3 PEL.
410.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 144.
411.
Wang (王翔) (2006), item 5; regarding a detailed analysis of the bankruptcy process, see Sects. 7.1.1.2 and 9.2.2.2.
412.
Zheng (2010), p. 227.
413.
Li (李飞) (ed) (2006a), p. 147.
414.
ibid, p. 147.
415.
Zheng (2010), p. 227.
416.
In contrast, should the general partner be a natural person and Chinese law be applicable, the situation would be more complicated as China does not yet have an individual bankruptcy regime (Zheng 2010, p. 227).
417.
Zheng (2010), p. 251.
418.
See in more detail, Binz and Sorge (2018), pp. 231–265.
419.
Werthwein (2010), p. 52.
420.
Art. 97 PEL.
421.
Art. 98 PEL.
422.
Art. 99 in conjunction with Art. 32 Para. 1 PEL.
423.
Art. 96 PEL.
424.
Art. 95 Para. 3 in conjunction with Art. 13 PEL.
425.
Art. 103 Para. 1 PEL.
426.
Art. 65 PEL.
427.
See Sect. 8.2.2.1.
428.
See Sect. 8.2.2.2.
429.
See Sect. 8.2.2.1.
430.
See Sect. 8.2.2.2.3.
431.
See Sect. 8.2.2.3.
432.
See Sect. 8.3.2.1.
433.
See Sect. 8.3.2.2.
434.
See Sect. 8.4.1.
435.
See Sect. 8.4.5.

References

Armour J, Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2009) What is corporate law? In: Kraakman R et al (eds) The anatomy of corporate law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–34
Google Scholar
Armour J, Enriques L, Pargendler M, Ringe W-G (2017a) Beyond the anatomy. In: Kraakman R et al (eds) The anatomy of corporate law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–272
Google Scholar
Armour J, Hansmann H, Kraakman R, Pargendler M (2017b) What is corporate law? In: Kraakman R et al (eds) The anatomy of corporate law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–28
Google Scholar
Banks R (2017) Lindley & Banks on partnership, 20th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Basedow J (2014) The application of foreign law – comparative remarks on the practical side of private international law. In: Basedow J, Pissler KB (eds) Private international law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 85–97
Google Scholar
Binz MK, Sorge MH (2018) Die GmbH & Co. KG im Gesellschafts- und Steuerrecht, 12th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
Bishop CG (2004) The new limited partner liability shield: has the vanquished control rule unwittingly resurrected lingering limited partner estoppel liability as well as full general partner liability. Suffolk Univ Law Rev 37:667–717
Google Scholar
Bu Y (2017) Einführung in das Recht Chinas, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
Callison JW, Sullivan MA (2017) Partnership law and practice: general and limited partnerships, 2017–2018 Edition. Thomson Reuters, Danvers
Google Scholar
Cao D (曹德斌), Zhang X (张小奕) (2017) A practical guide to the new partnership enterprise law (新合伙企业法实用手册). China Industry and Commerce Press (中国工商出版社), Beijing
Google Scholar
Chen W (2014) Selected problems of general provisions in private international law: the PRC perspective. In: Basedow J, Pissler KB (eds) Private international law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 51–63
Google Scholar
Chen J (2016) Chinese law: context and transformation, Revised and Expanded Edition. Brill, Leiden
Google Scholar
Du T (2014) The new Chinese conflict-of-law rules for legal persons: is the middle way feasible? In: Basedow J, Pissler KB (eds) Private international law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 331–348
Google Scholar
Feuerstein M, Duan X (2016) Haftung in der Kapitalgesellschaft. In: Binding J, Pissler KB (eds) Chinesisches Zivil- und Wirtschaftsrecht Band 2 – Schwerpunkt Wirtschaftsrecht. R&W, Frankfurt a.M., pp 201–218
Google Scholar
Foster N, Sule S (2010) German legal system and laws, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Gao F (高富平), Su H (苏号朋), Li Z (刘智慧) (1997) Principles and practice of partnership enterprise law (合伙企业法原理与实务). China Legal Publishing House (中国法制出版社), Beijing
Google Scholar
Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2000) The essential role of organizational law. Yale Law J 110:387–440
Article Google Scholar
Hansmann H, Kraakman R, Squire R (2005) The new business entities in evolutionary perspective. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2005:5–14
Google Scholar
Hong H (洪虎) (2006) Report on the Circumstances of the Revision of the Amended Draft of the PRC Partnership Enterprise Law – delivered on 24 June 2006 to the 22nd Session of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People’s Congress (关于《中华人民共和国合伙企业法(修订草案)》修改情况的汇报—2006年6月24日在第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十二次会议上). Yearbook of the National People’s Congress 2006: (全国人民代表大会年鉴2 0 0 6 年卷), pp 354–357
Google Scholar
Hopt KJ (2020) HGB § 5 Kaufmann kraft Eintragung. In: Baumbach A, Hopt KJ (eds) Handelsgesetzbuch, 39th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, § 5 para 1–18
Google Scholar
Huang Y (黄毅诚) (1997) Explanations on the Draft PRC Partnership Enterprise Law – delivered on 23 October 1996 to the 22nd Session of the Standing Committee of the 8th National People’s Congress (关于《中华人民共和国合伙企业法(草案)》的说明—1996年10月23日在第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十二次会议上). Gazette of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress 1997 No 1 (中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会常务委员会公报1997年1号), pp 12–16
Google Scholar
Huang H (2012) Piercing the corporate veil in China: where is it now and where is it heading? Am J Comp Law 60:743–774
Article Google Scholar
Huang J (2014) New perspectives on private international law in the People’s Republic of China. In: Basedow J, Pissler KB (eds) Private international law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 3–15
Google Scholar
Huang J, Song L, Li Q, Long W (2009) Chinese judicial practice in private international law: 2006. Chin J Int Law 8:715–740
Article Google Scholar
Hübner PA (2014) Rechtsschutz ausländischer Investoren vor chinesischen Gerichten. De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Johnson PR (1979) The corporation as managing partner in a limited partnership. North Dakota Law Rev 55:271–287
Google Scholar
Julius H, Bitter M (2005) Symposium zum chinesischen Personenhandelsgesellschaftsrecht. Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht 12:62–63
Google Scholar
Kindler P (2018) Internationales Handels- und Gesellschaftsrecht. In: Säcker FJ et al (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol 12, 7th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, pp 1565–1929
Google Scholar
Li Y (厉以宁) (1997) Examination Report of the Law Commission of the National People’s Congress on the Draft PRC Partnership Enterprise Law, delivered to the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the 8th National People’s Congress on 19 February 1997, (全国人大法律委员会关于《中华人民共和国合伙企业法(草案)》审议结果的报告—1997年2月19日在第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十四次会议上). Gazette of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress 1997 No 1 (中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会常务委员会公报1997年1号), pp 17–20
Google Scholar
Li F (李飞) (ed) (2006a) Interpretation of the PRC partnership enterprise law (中华人民共和国合伙企业法释义). Law Press China (法律出版社), Beijing
Google Scholar
Li X (李新) (2006b) On the disposal of property of the partnership enterprise (论合伙企业财产的处分). Econ Forum (经济论坛) 2006(8):128–129
Google Scholar
Lin L (2010) The limited liability partnership in China: a long way ahead. Int Company Commer Law Rev 21:259–265
Google Scholar
Lin L (2011) The limited partner’s derivative action: problems and prospects in the private equity market of China. Hong Kong Law J 41:201–230
Google Scholar
Lin L (2013) The private equity limited partnership in China: a critical evaluation of active limited partners. J Corp Law Stud 13:185–217
Article Google Scholar
Lin L, Yeo HY (2010) Limited partnership – the new business vehicle in China. Butterworth J Int Bank Financ Law 25:104–108
Google Scholar
Lüke O (2016) Besondere Erscheinungsformen der GmbH & Co. KG. In: Mueller-Thuns T (ed) Handbuch GmbH & Co. KG: Gesellschaftsrecht – Steuerrecht, vol 21. Schmidt, Cologne, para 2.461–2.558
Google Scholar
Ma Q (马强) (1997) Study on issues regarding the settlement of partnership debt (合伙债务清偿问题研究). The Jurist (法学家) 1997(4):55–62
Google Scholar
Pang MK (2013) Hong Kong as a base for doing business in Mainland China. Bus Law Today 2013(6):1–3
Google Scholar
Paul Hastings (2009) Draft foreign-invested partnership regulations – new possibilities for global funds in China? https://www.paulhastings.com/docs/default-source/PDFs/1400.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020
Pissler KB (2010) Die Gründung ausländischer Partnerschaftsunternehmen nach den neuen Registrierungsbestimmungen: Konkretisierungen, Antworten, Einschränkungen und neue Fragen. Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht 17:125–131
Google Scholar
Posner RA (2014) Economic analysis of law, 9th edn. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York
Google Scholar
Raiser T, Veil R (2015) Recht der Kapitalgesellschaften, 6th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich
Google Scholar
Ratigan JJ (1983) Piercing the veil of the corporate general partner in the hybrid limited partnership: a suggested remedy for inequitable conduct by limited partners. Suffolk Univ Law Rev 17:949–985
Google Scholar
Ribstein LE (1988) An applied theory of limited partnership. Emory Law J 37:835–895
Google Scholar
Roth M (2020a) HGB § 128 Persönliche Haftung der Gesellschafter. In: Baumbach A, Hopt KJ (eds) Handelsgesetzbuch, 39th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, § 128 para 1-47
Google Scholar
Roth M (2020b) HGB § 130 Haftung des eintretenden Gesellschafters. In: Baumbach A, Hopt KJ (eds) Handelsgesetzbuch, 39th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, § 130 para 1–9
Google Scholar
Roth M (2020c) HGB § 173 Haftung bei Eintritt als Kommanditist. In: Baumbach A, Hopt KJ (eds) Handelsgesetzbuch, 39th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich, § 173 para 1–16
Google Scholar
Schaper M (2013) Hybrid legal forms at the gates – the transition from combined legal forms to hybrid corporations and its consequences for creditor protection. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 10:75–112
Article Google Scholar
Schläfke H (2013) Vermögensbindung in der Kapitalgesellschaft & Co. KG als haftungsbeschränkter Personengesellschaft, Baden-Baden
Book Google Scholar
Schmidt K (1992) § 160 HGB Haftung des ausscheidenden Gesellschafters. In: Schlegelberger F, Geßler E (eds) Handelsgesetzbuch Kommentar, vol 3.1, 5th edn. Munich, pp 922–927
Google Scholar
Schmidt K (2002) Gesellschaftsrecht, 4th edn. Heymanns, Cologne
Google Scholar
Shen W (2015) Corporate law in China – structure, governance and regulation. Sweet&Maxwell, Hong Kong
Google Scholar
Shen W, Watters C (2014–2015) Is China creating a new business order? Rationalizing China’s extraterritorial attempt to expand the veil-piercing doctrine. Northwest J Int Law Bus 35:469–556
Google Scholar
Tang ZS, Xiao Y, Huo Z (2016) Conflict of laws in the People’s Republic of China. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Book Google Scholar
Teichmann C (2014) Die Auslandsgesellschaft & Co. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 43:220–251
Article Google Scholar
Veil R (2006) Existenzvernichtungshaftung. Gesellschaftsrechtliche Vereinigung – VGR 10:103–121
Google Scholar
Veil R (2008) Gesellschafterhaftung wegen existenzvernichtenden Eingriffs und materieller Unterkapitalisierung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – NJW 61:3264–3266
Google Scholar
Wang W (2004) CEPA: a lawful free trade agreement under one country, two customs territories. Law Bus Rev Am 10:647–666
Google Scholar
Wang X (王翔) (2006) Introduction to the circumstances of the revisions of the partnership enterprise law (合伙企业法修改情况介绍). http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/lfdt/2006-08/28/content_352015.htm. Accessed 15 May 2020
Wang B (2007) Neue Entwicklungen im IPR der VR China. Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 27:363–369
Google Scholar
Wang J (2014) Company law in China: regulation of business organizations in a socialist market economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Book Google Scholar
Weng J, Xia T (2007) Limited liability partnership: the best structure for funds? China Law Pract 21:97
Google Scholar
Werthwein S (2010) Corporations and partnerships. In: Bu Y (ed) Chinese business law. C. H. Beck, Hart and Nomos, Munich/Oxford, pp 15–54
Google Scholar
Wiedemann H (2004) Gesellschaftsrecht – Ein Lehrbuch des Unternehmens- und Verbandsrechts, Band II, Recht der Personengesellschaften. C. H. Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
Wu Y, Geu TE (2007–2008) The new PRC limited partnership enterprise law and the limited partnership law of the United States: a selective analytical comparison. UCLA Pacific Basin Law J 25:133–178
Google Scholar
Xiao Y, Huo Z (2005) Ordre public in China’s private international law. Am J Comp Law 53:653–678
Article Google Scholar
Xu C (徐春雷), Cao X (曹秀峰) (2007) A study on the administrative registration of foreign-invested partnership enterprises (外商投资合伙企业登记管理问题研究). Study on China’s Administration for Industry & Commerce (中国工商管理研究) 2007(12):29–31
Google Scholar
Yan Y (严义埙) (2006) Explanations on the revised draft of the PRC partnership enterprise law – delivered on 25 April 2006 to the 21st Session of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People’s Congress (关于《中华人民共和国合伙企业法(修订草案)》的说明—2006年4月25日在第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十一次会议上). Gazette of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress 2006 No 7 (中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会常务委员会公报2006年7号), pp 595–597
Google Scholar
Ye F (2002) Das chinesische Gesetz über Partnerschaftsunternehmen: Im Vergleich zum deutschen Recht. Lang, Frankfurt a.M
Google Scholar
Yu D, Feng S, Wei J (2012a) FIPs as the new investment vehicle. In: Tring D, Mok S (eds) The legal guide to FDI in China. China Law & Practice, Hong Kong, pp 9–12
Google Scholar
Yu D, Feng S, Wei J (2012b) Foreign invested partnerships: a new vehicle for investments? China Law Pract 26(8):10–13
Google Scholar
Yuantao X, Binxue S, Zhang D (1989) Translation of Liufang Fang: Chinese partnership. Law Contemp Probl 52:43–67
Google Scholar
Zhang C (2017) The distorted governance model of venture capital limited partnerships in China: a political perspective. Bus Law Rev 38:234–240
Google Scholar
Zhang Y, Du A (2014) Private equity funds in China. In: Moser MJ, Yu F (eds) Doing business in China, vol 1. Juris Publishing, Huntington, p II-5.1.2
Google Scholar
Zheng H (2010) Bankruptcy. In: Bu Y (ed) Chinese business law. Springer, Munich, pp 221–266
Google Scholar
Zhu C (朱慈蕴) (2008) The problem resulting from a corporation participating in a partnership as a general partner (公司作为普通合伙人投资合伙企业引发的法律思考). Mod Law Sci (现代法学) 30(5):77–85
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Hamburg, Germany
Stephan Kuntner

Authors

Stephan Kuntner
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuntner, S. (2021). Limited Liability. In: China’s Foreign-Invested Limited Partnership Enterprise. China-EU Law Series, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54181-1_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54181-1_8
Published: 02 October 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54180-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54181-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics