Hui Zhong Shenzhen-handled Case Selected as 2025 Shenzhen Lawyers’ Reference Case

2026-07-08

2026年7月5日，深圳市律师协会发布《关于公布2025年度深圳律师业务参考案例名单的通知》。本次评选经广泛征集与专家严格评审，旨在系统梳理深圳律师执业成果，汇聚各专业领域办案思路与实操经验，促进全市律师互学互鉴、共同提升。经公开申报、专家评审等严格程序，多个领域的优秀案例最终揭晓。本所合伙人白鹤敏律师与朱瑶瑶律师；合伙人曹玉龙律师、罗星炎律师与张卫涛律师分别承办的两起案件，成功入选金融领域与建工领域参考案例。两案均涉及司法实践中的前沿争议，代理律师在规则尚不明晰的背景下，凭借对法律原则的深刻把握与对裁判趋势的精准预判，为客户争取到有利结果，进一步彰显了汇仲在金融证券与建设工程争议解决领域的综合专业实力。

On July 5, 2026, the Shenzhen Lawyers Association issued the Circular on Announcing the List of 2025 Shenzhen Lawyers’ Reference Cases. This selection campaign, featuring wide case solicitation and rigorous expert review, is designed to systematically sort out the professional achievements of Shenzhen lawyers and collect litigation strategies and practical experience across various practice areas, so as to facilitate mutual learning and overall improvement among local practitioners. After strict procedures including public submission and expert evaluation, outstanding cases covering multiple sectors were unveiled.

Two cases handled separately by our Partners Bai Hemin & Zhu Yaoyao, and Partners Cao Yulong, Luo Xingyan & Zhang Weitao have been selected as reference cases under the Finance and Construction Engineering categories respectively. Both cases involve cutting-edge disputed legal issues in judicial practice. When relevant regulatory and judicial rules remained unclear, our attorneys secured favorable outcomes for clients through an in-depth grasp of legal principles and accurate anticipation of judicial tendencies, further demonstrating Hui Zhong’s comprehensive professional strengths in financial securities and construction engineering dispute resolution.

获评案件

案例一：某上市司控公股股东与投资方定增保底效力认定及差额补足款返还案

Case 1: Dispute over Validity of Private Placement Profit Guarantee and Repayment of Shortfall Compensation Between Controlling Shareholder of a Listed Company and Investors

该案由合伙人白鹤敏律师与朱瑶瑶律师承办，涉及上市公司非公开发行股份认购保底承诺争议。某基金作为投资方参与上市公司定增，控股股东承诺对减持后年化收益不足8%部分进行差额补足。基金减持退出后，与其管理人共同提起诉讼，要求控股股东支付差额补足款。汇仲律师团队接受控股股东委托后，紧密融合监管政策、司法裁判趋势与法学理论，对证据进行精细化重构，并就过错责任认定充分论证。最终，法院不仅驳回了对方全部诉讼请求，还支持了控股股东的部分反诉请求，成功为客户避免大额损失，并实现对方返还部分差额补足款及资金占用费的有利结果。

This case was handled by Partners Bai Hemin and Zhu Yaoyao, centering on disputes arising from profit guarantee commitments for non-public offering share subscriptions of a listed company. A fund participated in the listed company’s private placement as an investor, and the controlling shareholder promised to cover any shortfall if the annualized return fell below 8% after the fund’s share reduction and exit. Following the fund’s divestment, the fund and its administrator jointly filed a lawsuit demanding the controlling shareholder pay the shortfall compensation.

Entrusted by the controlling shareholder, the Hui Zhong team integrated regulatory policies, judicial precedents and legal theories, restructured evidence with meticulous precision, and presented comprehensive arguments on fault allocation. Ultimately, the court dismissed all claims brought by the opposing party and upheld part of the counterclaims filed by our client. We successfully helped the client avert substantial losses and secured a favorable ruling ordering the counterparty to refund part of the shortfall compensation plus capital occupation fees.

随着《上市公司非公开发行股票实施细则》（2020年修正）的发布，以及《关于为深化新三板改革、设立北京证券交易所提供司法保障的若干意见》等文件的出台，定增保底协议被认定无效的案例明显增多。然而，个案背景与保底履行情况各有特点，如何在具体案件中争取最佳利益，极大依赖律师的专业判断与证据挖掘深度。汇仲律师已代理多起涉及上市公司定增保底的纠纷，均在不同情形下为客户取得最优结果，以极致专业实现客户核心目标。

Since the issuance of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Non-public Issuance of Shares by Listed Companies (Revised 2020) and documents such as the Several Opinions on Providing Judicial Safeguards for Deepening the Reform of the New Third Board and Establishing the Beijing Stock Exchange, an increasing number of rulings have held private placement profit guarantee agreements void. Nevertheless, each case carries unique factual circumstances and performance status of guarantee obligations. Securing the most favorable outcome hinges heavily on lawyers’ professional judgment and thorough evidence excavation. Hui Zhong has represented numerous disputes involving private placement profit guarantees for listed companies and delivered optimal results for clients under diverse factual scenarios through top-tier professional service to fulfill clients’ core objectives.

案例二：发包人知情挂靠模式下各方主体的权利认定案

Case 2: Determination of Rights of All Parties Where the Employer Knew of the Construction Qualification Nominal Holder Arrangement

该案由合伙人曹玉龙律师、罗星炎律师与张卫涛律师承办，涉及发包人知情挂靠模式下，被挂靠人是否有权主张工程款的争议。某被挂靠人与发包人签订《总承包合同》后，工程实际由挂靠人施工完成。工程竣工验收后，被挂靠人起诉要求发包人支付欠付工程款1.65亿元。团队接受发包人委托后，紧扣《民法典》第146条关于虚假意思表示的规定，主张合同无效、真实法律关系存在于发包人与实际施工人之间，并通过多维度证据还原挂靠事实，成功申请实际施工人以第三人身份加入诉讼，最终法院认定被挂靠人无权主张工程款、驳回其全部诉讼请求。

This case was handled by Partners Cao Yulong, Luo Xingyan and Zhang Weitao, addressing the controversy over whether a nominal contractor is entitled to claim construction project payments where the employer was aware of the qualification nominal holder arrangement. A nominal contractor signed a General Contract with the employer, yet the actual construction work was completed by an unqualified actual constructor under a nominal holding arrangement. After project completion and acceptance, the nominal contractor sued the employer for outstanding project payments amounting to RMB 165 million.

Engaged by the employer, our team grounded our arguments in Article 146 of the Civil Code governing false declarations of intent, asserting the construction contract was void and that the genuine legal relationship existed solely between the employer and the actual constructor. We reconstructed the full chain of evidence proving the nominal holding arrangement and successfully applied for the actual constructor to join the litigation as a third party. The court finally ruled that the nominal contractor had no right to claim project payments and dismissed all its claims.

本案一审判决于2025年2月作出。2026年6月29日，最高人民法院发布《关于审理建设工程施工合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释（二）》，其中第四条第二款的规定与本案代理思路及裁判方向完全一致。在司法解释尚未出台、同类参考案例有限的背景下，代理律师基于对法律原则的把握和建工领域裁判趋势的预判，为客户争取到了有利结果。

The first-instance judgment was rendered in February 2025. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Judicial Interpretation II on Issues Concerning the Trial of Construction Project Construction Contract Disputes, whose Paragraph 2 of Article 4 aligns perfectly with our litigation strategy and the court’s ruling in this case. At the time of litigation, the relevant judicial interpretation had not yet been released and there were limited comparable precedents. Relying on solid grasp of legal principles and accurate anticipation of judicial trends in construction disputes, our attorneys secured a favorable judgment for the client.

挂靠事实的认定高度依赖证据链条的完整性与庭审中法律关系的精准构建。本团队在建设工程领域具有丰富实战经验，善于通过主体资格抗辩、追加当事人等程序工具，为客户在复杂建工纠纷中实现核心目标。

Establishing the existence of a nominal holding arrangement relies heavily on a complete evidentiary chain and precise articulation of legal relationships during hearings. Our team boasts extensive hands-on experience in construction litigation and adeptly utilizes procedural tools such as challenges to litigant standing and joinder of parties to achieve clients’ core goals amid complex construction disputes.

承办合伙人

查看往期文章，请点击以下链接：

声明：本文观点仅供参考，不可视为汇仲律师事务所及其律师对有关问题出具的正式法律意见。如您有任何法律问题或需要法律意见，请与本所联系。

汇仲律师事务所是一家专注于国内与国际高端民商事争议解决的精品律所，在北京、上海、深圳、香港、新加坡设有办公室。汇仲律师十分擅长处理高价值、重大复杂疑难案件与新型跨境案件，他们能够不遗余力地搜寻可以改变判决结果的微小事实，引导案件从绝境到佳境。不论是从案件代理难度、业界口碑还是客户美誉度而言，汇仲已经快速发展成为中国争议解决律师方阵中的一支劲旅。