题目内容
天山有限责任公司（以下简称天山公司）由5家国有企业联合设立，注册资本为1亿元。2007年3月，公司净资产额8000万元，公司其他有关情况如下：（1）天山公司曾于2004年8月成功发行3年期公司债券1500万元，1年期公司债券500万元。（2）天山公司现有董事7名，2007年3月10日，董事长提议，趁全体董事15日均无外出任务，召开临时董事会。15日全体董事如期到会，董事会上制定并通过了“公司债券发行方案”和“公司增资方案”，两个方案的主要内容分别为：本年度计划再次发行1年期公司债券2000万元；将公司现有的注册资本由1亿元增加到1.5亿元。会后将上述两个方案提交公司股东会。（3）4月10日，公司股东会在其召开的定期会议上审议了董事会提交的“公司增资方案”，股东会审议表决结果为：3家股东赞成增资，这3家股东的出资总和为5840万元；2家股东不赞成增资，这2家股东的出资总和为4160万元。股东会通过了增资决议，并授权董事会执行。（4）4月20日，公司监事会在检查公司财务时发现，公司经理王某擅自将公司5万元资金借给其亲属开办公司。要求：根据上述事实及有关法律规定，回答下列问题：（1）天山公司的“公司债券发行方案”的主要内容是否合法为什么（2）天山公司股东会作出的增资决议是否合法为什么（3）天山公司对王某擅自挪用公司资金的行为应如何处理
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
公司不得收购本公司的股票，但可以接受本公司的股票作为质押权的标的。 ( )
Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers — one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers — which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature — the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk — the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells — it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish- or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being off-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any beating on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness", says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects — both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer-review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make Science beyond the honor system. Science has decided to______.
Questions l to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the news. What did Mrs. Bruce’s attitude towards suffragette movement use to be
某百货有限责任公司注册资本为人民币2000万元，其货币出资金额为人民币350万元。该公司的这一出资方式并不违反《公司法》的规定。( )
微信支付 
支付宝支付