Acting tortfeasance: Penetrating the layers of nested legal relationships | Media Pyro

IIn recent years, the authors have handled many cases in which the owner, the company’s director or the managing partners of the association took advantage of their positions to harm the interests of the company . In these cases, criminals, who have the power to make company decisions or control official seals, have forced companies to make certain decisions or enter to capital contributions, loans, sales offices, or other suspicious agreements with their groups, allow those related to the identity and basis to receive benefits. These transactions may in fact conceal legal purposes for capital avoidance, false capital contribution, embezzlement, or misappropriation of corporate assets.

GREAT CHICKEN NEEDS

The final damages from these cases are often the result of multiple interrelated actions taken by multiple perpetrators. Offenders based on different characteristics and legal behaviors can be evaluated and fall into different legal categories, creating multi-layered, nested legal relationships related to Contract Law, Company Law, Business Law or Property Law.

These cases are very complex and difficult. Depending on the project, focusing on a specific part of the work may not reflect the whole idea – a serious attack on the interests of the company – making it impossible to get a decent living. Administratively, due to the specific nature of the settlement agreements and their different clauses for dispute resolution, it may be difficult to bring the liquidators under a single lawsuit or arbitration, as the lack of case-by-case variation is too costly. costs of litigation or arbitration, as well as time.

Technically, if the other side does not present evidence, it may be difficult to accurately and precisely distinguish between the various actions and their harm based only on the current evidence, but it can be problematic. judgments independent of the uncertainty of the true subject.

KEEPING THE COURSE

In order for medicine, economics, and, if possible, a one-to-one resolution of war to be justified, many layers of legal relations must be involved. With this in mind, the authors believe that tortfeasance is an appropriate approach for the following reasons:

1. 1. 1. There is no limit on the number of tortfeasors or wrongdoers, and it can cover a wide range of crimes and torts;
      2. There is a statutory requirement for a joint tortfeasance scheme, but contractual existence and other relationships between the subjects are not considered a subject of litigation;
      3. The right to joint tortfeasance is determined by legal means, which means that there is an opportunity to violate the obligation of the dispute resolution provision in many contracts.

This litigation strategy is also accepted by the judiciary. “If the directors or senior managers are harming the company’s interests, violating their duties and taking advantage of their positions, this means that it is a bad practice, no different in nature from other common violations. If the directors and general managers meet with others or cooperate to commit a crime, they fall under the condition of joint liability described under article 1168 of the Civil Code ,” reads article 35 of the Judicial Guidelines of the Second Section. of the High People’s Court of Guangxi Zhuang Special Region on certain matters for the trial of company dispute cases.

Likewise, if other employees, who are fully aware of the wrongdoings of the directors and senior managers, help to harm the interests of the company and the consequences of that harm, they fall under the situation described under article 1169 of the Civil Code. People who are found to have cooperated in a criminal act, aided or abetted in the commission of that act, will be held accountable.

IT’S A GREAT DEAL

Since they had their own division of functions of the courts, each of them used to manage some types of legal relations but not others, combined with the traditional practice of “one judge for each legal relationship”, they may be able to break the judgment when dealing with many. layer of nested rule relationships. For this purpose, the lawyers must make certain arrangements in advance.

From a critical point of view, strong arguments must be presented for the entire cause of tortfeasance, with special emphasis on proving the co-operative intent of the perpetrators and establishing joint or auxiliary actions. Considering the seriousness of the burden of proof under a general tort, if there is a specific tort case that is carefully defined by law, lawyers can use the allegation of liability and the burden of proof under the special provisions by first finding the tort liability of special. subject, pleads for joint infringement or aiding and abetting with respect to other offenders.

This can take some of the branding burden off the company’s shoulders. In criminal prosecutions, documents and investigative findings in criminal proceedings may be used as evidence to incriminate a person. In addition, the lack of independence can be expressed in the declarations of the subjects’ agendas based on their social relations or the negative control exercised by each other.

Based on the procedures, lawyers can, if necessary, remind the court to pay attention and respect the right of the petitioner to submit, and to avoid manual division of actions. The petitioner is entitled, if permitted by law, to bring the argument of his chosen legal relationship, and the facts and issues related to the purpose of the submission. Therefore the scope of the litigation should be limited to the plaintiff’s choice and the case should not be divided based on other relevant but undisputed legal relationships.

In addition, in complex cases, the nature of legal relationships may go through many definitions. Therefore, a case-by-case division that ignores the underlying relationships and simply incorporates the categories into existing legal models may be a step back from the goal of resolving disputes.