题目内容

案情:甲、乙国有企业与另外7家国有企业拟联合组建设立“天运达有限责任公司”(以下简称天运达公司),公司章程的部分内容是:公司股东会除召开定期会议外,还可以召开临时会议,临时会议须经代表1/2以上表决权的股东、1/2以上的董事或1/2以上的监事提议召开。在申请公司设立登记时,工商行政管理机关指出了公司章程中规定的关于召开临时股东会议方面的不合法之处。经全体股东协商后,予以纠正。 2006年3月,天运达公司依法登记设立,注册资本为1亿元,其中甲以工业产权出资,协议作价金额1200万元;乙出资1400万元,是出资最多的股东。公司成立后,由甲召集和主持首次股东会会议,设立了董事会。2006年5月,天运达公司董事会发现,甲作为出资的工业产权的实际价额显著低于公司章程所定的价额,为了使公司股东出资总额仍达到1亿元,董事会提出了解决方案,即由甲补足差额;如果甲不能补足差额,则由其他股东按出资比例分担该差额。 2006年5月,公司经过一段时间的运作后,经济效益较好,董事会拟订了一个增加注册资本的方案,方案提出将公司现有的注册资本由1亿元增加到1.5亿元。增资方案提交到股东会讨论表决时,有7家股东赞成增资,7家股东出资总和为5830万元,占表决权总数的 58.3%;有2家股东不赞成增资,2家股东出资总和为4170万元,占表决权总数的41.7%。股东会通过增资决议,并授权董事会执行。 2006年7月,天运达公司因业务发展需要,依法成立了上海分公司。上海分公司在生产经营过程中,因违约被诉至法院,对方以天运达公司是上海分公司的总公司为由,要求天运达公司承担违约责任。 问题: 天运达公司董事会作出的关于甲出资不足的解决方案的内容是否合法说明理由。

查看答案
更多问题

王超可以向哪个法院起诉为什么

TEXT A The destruction of our natural resources and contamination of our food supply continue to occur, largely because of the extreme difficulty in affixing legal responsibility on those who continue to treat our environment with reckless abandon. Attempts to prevent pollution legislation, economic incentives and friendly persuasion have been met by lawsuits, personal and industrial denial and long delays—not only in accepting responsibility, but more importantly, in doing something about it. It seems that only when government decides it can afford tax incentives or production sacrifices is there any initiative for change. Where is industry’s and our recognition that protecting mankind’s great treasure is the single most important responsibility If ever there will be time for environmental health professionals to come to the frontlines and provide leadership to solve environmental problems, that time is now. We are being asked, and, in fact, the public is demanding that we take positive action. It is our responsibility as professionals in environmental health to make the difference. Yes, the ecologists, the environmental activists and the conservationists serve to communicate, stimulate thinking and promote behavioral change. However, it is those of us who are paid to make the decisions to develop, improve and enforce environmental standards, I submit, who must lead the charge. We must recognize that environmental health issues do not stop at city limits, county lines, state or even federal boundaries. We can no longer afford to be tunnel-versioned in our approach. We must visualize issues’ from every perspective make the objective decisions. We must express our views clearly to prevent media distortion and public confusion. I believe we have a three-part mission for the present. First, we must continue to press for improvements in the quality of life that people can make for themselves. Second, we must investigate and understand the link between environment and health. Third, we must be able to communicate technical information in a form that citizens can understand. If we can accomplish these three goals in this decade, maybe we can finally stop environmental degradation, and not merely hold it back. We will then be able to spend pollution dollars truly on prevention rather than on bandages. The main task now facing ecologists, environmental activists and conservationists is______.

A. to prevent pollution by legislation, economic incentives and persuasion
B. to arouse public awareness of the importance of environmental protection
C. to take radical measures to consol environmental pollution
D. to improve the quality of life by enforcing environmental standards

[解析] 女:我想了解一下小王的为人,别人托我给他介绍个对象。 男:小王这人喜欢打抱不平,为朋友两肋插刀。 问:男的认为小王这人怎么样?()

A. 吝啬小气
B. 慷慨大方
C. 很讲义气
D. 憨厚老实

TEXT C Ever since it appeared on the cultural scene, the Enlightenment has had its passionate critics. Philosophers as well as politicians have criticized its rationalism, its individualism, its cosmopolitanism, its faith in science and technology, its humanism, and its lack of respect for established traditions. Some have criticized individual aspects of it, others have condemned it in its entirety. At times Enlightenment thinking was all but eclipsed, as during the later part of the period of literary Romanticism, while at other times it re-surfaced with renewed vigor. In varying ways it has had a challenged and challenging presence in Western thought to this day. In recent decades Enlightenment thinking has been the target of critical endeavors once more. This time it is its individualism and cosmopolitanism that have come under persistent attack from various quarters, together with its attempt to find and formulate universally valid norms and values. Anti-Enlightenment initiatives have surfaced inside the United States as well as worldwide. They are often launched in the name of "multiculturalism," "ethnic identity," the supposed importance of "roots," and the general importance of "diff6rence" as opposed to’ people’s common humanity. With respect to social integration, advocates of ethnic separateness prefer cultural and racial "salad bowls" to the traditional American "melting pot." An issue is the Enlightenment idea that ideally every individual should not only have the right, but even the obligation to determine for himself or herself who he or she wants to be, what sort of life he or she wants to live, or with whom he or she wants to associate more closely. An individual, in other words, should not be obliged by any group to adhere to "his" or "her" religion, ethnicity, race, or social tradition, but be allowed and encouraged to make personal choices in all these regards-in effect be entirely free of any such particularistic determinations, if that seems best to the person in question. Essentially individuals are not seen by Enlightenment thinkers as members of particular groups, but as "citizens of the world," as unencumbered inhabitants of a polity that is governed by laws that in principle are valid for all human beings. People will, of course, be born into specific communities that may be distinguished from each other by various racial or cultural traits. But these distinguishing traits are not particularly important, according to Enlightenment thinking—not nearly as important as that which all human beings have in common, namely reason. While Enlightenment theoreticians will acknowledge or even welcome variety among human beings, they are far more serious about what potentially unites them, and about what should accrue to them on account of their common humanity. If in most societies—often after long and costly battles—laws have been passed which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or national origin, then an important Enlightenment principle has been realized—the principle that every individual is first a human being, and only secondarily a member of particular groups. And while recognition of one’s common humanity may not necessarily be in conflict with being a member of any particular group, the principle demands that if there is a conflict, then people’s common humanity takes precedence over any particularity. What is important, in other words, is not that I am Christian, Black, or Sioux, but that I am a human being, and that as such I have certain basic rights—the right of self-determination most prominently among them. Any attempt on the part of any group to declare their particularity as primary vis-a-vis someone’s basic humanity is an outdated prejudice, and an infringement on a person’s basic rights, as far as Enlightenment thinking is concerned. Particularism and its divisiveness—all too often the cause of contempt, hatred, fanaticism, and Wars—is essentially a thing of the past. Progress consists in the ever growing realization that all human beings are fundamentally the same, and that their important needs and rights as individuals are universal. The Enlightenment thinkers see persons as "citizens of the world". That means______

A. they think people in the world should obey the same rules
B. people shouldn’t have their own religion and lives
C. people don’t belong to any particular groups
D. people should be ruled by the same laws

答案查题题库