Use It For
Use this to show the later judicial move toward separating the validity of a target-company VAM from whether and how the obligation can be performed under capital-maintenance and repurchase rules.
Brief English Introduction
The case is not an SPC guiding or Gazette case, but it is often taught because it anticipated the Jiu Min Minutes’ approach: a VAM with the target company may be valid, while actual performance remains constrained by company-law procedures.
Teaching Notes
Pair it with Haifu and the Jiu Min Minutes. Students should ask whether the court is enforcing a contract, designing an exit remedy, or indirectly reshaping capital-maintenance doctrine.