Accounts are frozen, payment cannot come in, wages cannot be paid, and the company is about to shut down - is this a nightmare for many bosses? The Nanzhang Court in Xiangyang gave a different answer: a technology company’s account was frozen due to a payment dispute. The court did not make a one-size-fits-all decision, but asked the company to provideCounter guaranteeReal estate replacement and preservation, accounts unblocked, operations continued, and all three cases were mediated and settled within 20 days. To put it bluntly, the court will no longer settle the case with a letter, but will settle the accounts first - assess the impact on business operations, and if it can be secured by a house, it will never interrupt your cash flow. This is the judicial wisdom of "seal and buckle" to "untie" enterprises.
A listed company was on the verge of delisting, but the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court completed the reorganization in 45 days, bringing in 1.536 billion in funds, resolving more than 2 billion in debt, and saving the jobs of more than 1,500 employees; a high-tech enterprise almost lost a large order due to credit penalties, and the court issued a "decision on suspending credit penalties". There are also cross-provincial recovery of 150 million execution funds, fake divorce transfers and transfer of assets to the public security for criminal prosecution-all these incidents tell business owners: the court does not only seal the auction, but can save lives at critical times.
Lawyer Ying Ting believes that from flexible preservation to credit repair, from bankruptcy reorganization to cross-domain enforcement, these 10 typical cases of Xiangyang Court have released a strong signal: a legalized business environment is not a slogan, but a real-money rescue operation. Don’t panic when an enterprise encounters a dispute, find the right approach and apply the right rules.
On May 27, the Municipal Government Information Office organized a press conference, inviting the relevant person in charge of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court to introduce the city's courts' special actions to standardize enterprise-related law enforcement and judicial actions since 2025, and released 10 typical cases of optimizing the legal business environment.
These 10 typical cases cover scenarios such as flexible preservation, billion-yuan dispute mediation, listed company reorganization, cross-domain enforcement, credit repair, severe punishment for refusal of enforcement, etc., and showcase the practical achievements of Xiangyang Court in prudent administration of justice, efficient dispute resolution, good-faith enforcement, and government-court coordination. The specific situation is as follows:
Basic case facts
A technology company failed to pay its dues in full and on time, and was sued by three plaintiffs including an electronics company. During the trial of the case, three plaintiffs, including an electronics company, applied for property preservation. The Nanzhang Court ruled in accordance with the law to freeze the bank account of a technology company and at the same time served the company with a "Self-Assessment Form for the Economic Impact of Enterprises Involved in Litigation". A technology company reported to the court that its accounts were unable to circulate due to account freezing, which affected the company's normal production and operations, and it hoped to provide account preservation measures to release the guaranteed property. The Nanzhang Court carefully assessed the impact of the preservation behavior on the production and operation of the company, took effective prevention and disposal measures, and ruled to replace the preserved property in accordance with the law. While freezing the counter-guaranteed real estate, its bank account was unblocked. Based on the company's operating conditions and graded assessment results, the company adopted a model of quick trial and quick adjustment, as well as a combination of mediation and judgment, which successfully prompted three companies to reach mediation agreements with a technology company respectively, shortening the average trial time of cases to 20 days, and achieving quick trials and quick settlements.
Typical meaning
This case is a vivid practice for the Xiangyang Court to comprehensively implement the economic impact assessment system for enterprise-related cases and practice the prudent and standardized judicial concept. Nanzhang Court provides a smooth channel for enterprises involved in litigation to express their demands, listens to and responds to the judicial needs of enterprises more proactively and actively, and allows various market entities to truly feel the intensity and warmth of justice. During the preservation process, the requirements of "live sealing and live buckling" are strictly implemented to minimize the possible negative impact of judicial activities on the production and operation of the enterprise. Preservation measures are reasonably adjusted according to the actual situation of the case and the company's operating conditions, reducing the company's litigation costs and operating burdens, "loosening" the smooth operation of the company, and helping it to overcome operating difficulties.
Basic case facts
A construction company signed a construction project contract with a cultural development company to develop a "Cultural Industrial Park Project in Xiangyang". The projects involved in the case have been completed and accepted one after another, but the two parties have been unable to reach an agreement on the settlement of project payments for a long time. A construction company sued the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court to require a cultural development company to pay about 130 million yuan in project final payment, liquidated damages and other expenses. At the same time, a cultural development company sued a construction company in a district court for compensation of approximately 60 million yuan, citing defects in project quality. The Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court professionally tried construction project cases, determined the core disputes, and coordinated the handling of disputes over project price payment and project quality claims. It guided a construction company to rationally evaluate project quality issues, urged a cultural development company to fulfill its main responsibilities, maintain the social image of cultural tourism projects, and take timely engineering maintenance measures to facilitate the two parties to reach a mediation agreement. A cultural development company voluntarily withdraws another lawsuit.
Typical meaning
Cultural tourism projects have the characteristics of large investment scale, long construction period, involving public safety and operational efficiency. This case accurately grasps the correlation between project price and quality defect liability, coordinates the resolution of project price and project quality disputes involving cultural tourism projects, effectively reduces dispute resolution costs for private enterprises, avoids the burden of multiple cases, and helps companies relieve themselves and reduce their burdens. The Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court standardizes the order of market transactions through judicial trials, guides companies to perform contracts with integrity, effectively protects the legitimate rights and interests of construction companies, empowers the high-quality development of the local cultural tourism industry, promotes the smooth operation of cultural tourism projects, promotes the healthy, orderly, and sustainable development of the cultural tourism industry, and achieves the judicial effect of preventing risks and promoting development.
Basic case facts
An engineering company signed an "Asset Transfer Agreement" with a concrete company to package and sell assets such as factories and concrete production equipment. However, both parties failed to fully complete the delivery of assets and payments, which became a legacy issue from history. In 2022, an engineering company entered bankruptcy liquidation proceedings. The bankruptcy administrator notified a concrete company to terminate the "Asset Transfer Agreement", and the termination was confirmed by the court. In 2024, the bankruptcy administrator of an engineering company filed a lawsuit, requiring a concrete company to return assets and pay asset occupation fees of 12.58 million yuan. A certain concrete company claimed that an engineering company should return a paid transfer fee of 12.3 million yuan and asset maintenance and transformation costs of 5.45 million yuan. The conflict between the two parties was acute. Considering that a concrete company has performed good renovation and management of the assets involved in the case, if the mechanical referee is returned, it will lead to the suspension of production and operations of high-quality enterprises, unemployment of employees, and devaluation of assets. An engineering company will also face huge financial pressure, which is not conducive to promoting bankruptcy procedures. Once the execution procedures are entered, it will also reach a deadlock. After the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court organized the two parties to reach a mediation agreement, and it was approved by the creditors' meeting, it was confirmed that a certain concrete company would make up the payment to an engineering company, and the assets involved in the case belonged to a certain concrete company. The disputes between the two parties regarding the return of assets, occupancy fees, maintenance and renovation costs, etc. were substantially resolved.
Typical meaning
This case was properly resolved by Xiangyang Court through mediation.bankruptcy derivative litigation, a typical case of achieving win-win results for all parties. The Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court insists on substantively resolving disputes, focusing on the principle of maximizing the revaluation of bankrupt properties and protecting the sustainable and healthy operation goals of enterprises, effectively avoiding procedural idling, and through high-quality trials of bankruptcy derivative litigation, it achieves an effective connection between bankruptcy procedures and litigation procedures, and also avoids cases entering the execution procedure and reaching a deadlock. It fully reflects the important role of bankruptcy derivative litigation in resolving historical disputes, optimizing the quality and efficiency of bankruptcy trials, and balancing the interests of all parties, and provides a favorable guarantee for the rapid advancement of bankruptcy procedures.
Basic case facts
A certain science and technology joint-stock company is a listed company, mainly engaged in medical beauty services and bio-based fibers. Its core assets are of high quality. However, due to various factors such as losses in the chemical fiber sector and the debt crisis of the controlling shareholder, the company faces the risk of delisting. After Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court accepted the company's pre-reorganization application, it immediately studied and judged the reorganization plan, coordinated and solved issues such as employee placement and credit repair, and guided the interim manager to complete investor recruitment, pre-reorganization plan,Rehabilitation Services Trustetc., and successfully introduced joint investors such as a pharmaceutical company. On November 14, 2025, Xiangyang Intermediate Court accepted the reorganization case of a technology joint-stock company.draft reorganization planIt was approved by a unanimous vote at the creditors meeting and the investor group meeting. On December 16, 2025, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court approved the reorganization plan of a certain technology joint-stock company. On December 29, 2025, the bankruptcy and reorganization procedures of a certain technology joint-stock company ended, and the reorganization process took only 45 days. Through reorganization, the company has introduced a total of 1.536 billion yuan in capital, resolved debts of more than 2 billion yuan, and fundamentally optimized the asset structure, effectively reducing the delisting risk of listed companies and promoting the implementation of 500 million yuan in industrial investment.
Typical meaning
This case is the first reorganization case of a listed company in Xiangyang City. It is a landmark practice of the Xiangyang Court to serve the real economy through bankruptcy trials, promote the transformation and upgrading of local industries, and protect the rights and interests of creditors and employees. Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court puts the protection of the employment of more than 1,500 employees and the rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors in the first place. Focusing on the goals of "rescuing enterprises" and "strengthening chains", it innovatively uses pre-reorganization connection, classified liquidation,mutual debtIntroducing other mechanisms, relying on the linkage between government and institutions, introducing an "industry + financial" investment portfolio, and actively integrating with Xiangyang's "two capital and three energy" strategy, successfully introducing leading pharmaceutical companies as industrial investors, reshaping growth momentum and long-term value, achieving the extended effect of "reviving an enterprise, driving an industrial chain, and stabilizing the economy of one party", and injecting strong judicial momentum into the healthy development of the capital market and the upgrading of local industries.
Basic case facts
After a food company stopped production in 2018, its 93,000-square-meter factory and land remained idle for a long time. In July 2023, the Fancheng District Court accepted the company's bankruptcy liquidation case and innovatively adopted the "competition + lottery" method to quickly appoint a manager. Faced with the "three highs" dilemma of high corporate debt, high asset idle rate, and high social risks, the joint administrators of Fancheng Court changed their thinking and carried out targeted investment promotion with "asset realization + industry introduction" to meet the needs of the local textile industry, and finally attracted a textile company in Xiangyang City to invest 300 million yuan to take over the assets. Through the joint coordination of the government and the government and the clearing of obstacles in accordance with the law, the delivery of "clean land" was achieved. At present, the company has introduced high-end spinning projects, and the first phase of the automated production line has been put into operation, which has greatly saved manpower. The products have filled the gap in the high-end market in central China, and the annual procurement cost has been saved by about 7 million yuan. The project revitalized idle assets, promoted the agglomeration and upgrading of the regional textile industry, and achieved the multiple effects of “disposing of a project, introducing an industry, and driving the development of one party”.
Typical meaning
This case uses the "market-based auction + precise investment + government-agency linkage" model to revitalize existing assets and promote industrial upgrading, demonstrating the positive role of high-quality development of judicial services and optimizing the business environment. The Fancheng Court breaks through the traditional bankruptcy and liquidation thinking, combines judicial procedures with industrial upgrading, flexibly solves asset disposal problems, and ensures asset delivery with efficient execution. It not only revitalizes long-idle "zombie assets" and safeguards the rights and interests of creditors to the greatest extent, but also promotes local industrial upgrading by introducing high-quality enterprises, releasing the linkage benefits of "bankruptcy trial + investment attraction". Provide a replicable template for inefficient asset disposal, revitalization of idle resources, and conversion of old and new driving forces.
Basic case facts
An enterprise management company signed a "Civil Renovation and Construction Contract" with a certain construction company, stipulating that a certain construction company would undertake the construction of the civil renovation project in a certain building. During the construction, a worker did not wear safety protective equipment or take any support measures when demolishing the wall. The wall collapsed and he was killed. The investigation determined that the direct cause was the employee's illegal and risky work; the indirect cause was a construction company's failure to fulfill its main responsibility for safety production, using subcontracting, failure to formulate emergency plans, and failure to conduct safety training; and a certain enterprise management company's failure to fulfill its safety production responsibilities. A business management company reached a compensation agreement with the workers’ families. The Emergency Management Bureau of a certain district imposed a fine of 200,000 yuan on an enterprise management company and a construction company. An enterprise management company was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting that the administrative penalty be revoked. The court of first instance rejected the decision and the company appealed. The second instance of the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court held that the administrative penalty should comply with the principle of proportionality of the penalty. As a construction unit, a certain enterprise management company has indirect and secondary responsibilities, and the fine should reflect the distinction between primary and secondary. The original fine of 200,000 yuan failed to distinguish responsibilities, and the penalty was obviously inappropriate, so the judgment was changed to 50,000 yuan.
Typical meaning
Safety production is the bottom line requirement for high-quality development. Administrative penalties must adhere to the principle of proportionality of punishment and leniency. It is necessary to strictly adhere to the bottom line of safety and avoid improperly increasing the burden on enterprises. This case has passed judicial review, distinguishing the different responsibilities of the construction unit and the construction unit in the management of work safety, and correcting the administrative penalties of "indiscriminate prioritization and improper discretion" in accordance with the law. It not only maintains the seriousness of production safety laws and regulations, urges enterprises to implement the main responsibilities, but also standardizes administrative law enforcement behavior, prevents excessive penalties from affecting the normal operation of enterprises, provides judicial guidance for precise law enforcement and reasonable discretion for administrative agencies to handle safety production liability accidents, helps improve the standardization level of enterprise-related administrative law enforcement, and creates a fair and just, leniency and severity, safe and stable market environment.
Basic case facts
A labor service company (contractor) signed a "Construction Project Construction Contract" with a Hubei company (contractor) for a certain project. Duan is the actual investor and beneficiary of the project, and Duan signed a "Qualification Lending Agreement" with a labor service company. The Comprehensive Law Enforcement Committee of a certain district made an administrative penalty decision on a labor service company's behavior of lending qualifications, and imposed a fine of 1.5 million yuan based on 2.5% of the cost of 60 million yuan in the "Construction Project Construction Contract". A labor service company was dissatisfied and applied for administrative reconsideration and filed administrative lawsuits. The reconsideration authority upheld the administrative penalty decision involved in the case. The court of first instance used the contract settlement price of 4.3 million yuan negotiated by the parties themselves as the base and changed the fine amount to 107,500 yuan. The second instance of the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court held that the administrative penalty based on the "project contract price" has a clear legal basis and strong operability. In this case, a labor service company and a Hubei company negotiated to determine the settlement price of 4.3 million yuan. It was not confirmed by legal procedures such as judicial appraisal or court judgment, and without the participation of the actual constructor Duan. Moreover, the amount was significantly different from the project contract cost of 60 million yuan, making it difficult to determine its authenticity and accuracy. The second instance revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed the litigation claim of a labor service company.
Typical meaning
Lending qualifications in the construction field seriously undermines the order of market access and creates hidden dangers for project quality and production safety. It must be strictly regulated in accordance with the law. This case clarifies that among the administrative penalties imposed on construction companies for illegally lending qualifications, the determination of the penalty base "project contract price" should be based on the price agreed upon in the contract signed by both parties. This recognition provides clear adjudicative guidance for administrative law enforcement in the construction field, which is conducive to creating a stable and predictable business environment, maintaining the order of the construction market, and preventing hidden risks in project quality and safety. This case serves as a warning to market entities in the construction industry not to circumvent qualification management regulations in any form, to effectively guard the bottom line of project quality and safety, to encourage market entities to operate in compliance with regulations, and to jointly maintain a good ecology of the construction industry.
Basic case facts
A power company in Guizhou was legally enforced by the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court for failing to fulfill its payment obligation of 154.796 million yuan to a joint-stock company determined by an effective judgment. The two parties reached an enforcement settlement in 2023, but it has not yet materialized. In August 2024, a joint-stock company applied for resumption of execution. On December 25, 2024, Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court made an online auction announcement of 31.19% of the equity of a chemical company held by a power company in Guizhou. After the case entered the auction process, facing the new situation that the person subject to execution entered pre-reorganization, Xiangyang Intermediate Court promptly coordinated with Qianxinan Intermediate Court. In response to the core demands of a joint-stock company after the auction, such as using debt to pay the auction price, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court took the initiative to make a judgment and report it step by step. Through multi-party coordination, it clarified the solution of "paying debt with things + remaining debt to participate in bankruptcy". After that, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court went to the local area to conduct multiple rounds of communication with the Qianxinan Intermediate People's Court, the person subject to execution and its bankruptcy liquidation team, and finally led all parties to reach an agreement on the debt offset and subsequent declaration plan. In May 2025, a joint-stock company completed the change of shareholders and most of its debts were realized.
Typical meaning
The enforcement of effective judgments is the last line of defense to maintain judicial fairness, and is also a key link in optimizing the legal business environment and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of market entities. By building an efficient execution mechanism with multi-level linkage and cross-provincial collaboration, this case successfully solved the execution problems of cross-regional and cross-procedural complex cases and effectively realized the rights and interests of private enterprises to win the lawsuit. Faced with the complex situation of enterprises subject to execution entering pre-reorganization procedures and intertwined execution and bankruptcy procedures, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court actively reported and obtained special guidance from the superior court to form a clear disposal plan, properly connect the execution procedures and bankruptcy procedures, fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises, and effectively boost the vitality and investment confidence of market entities.
Basic case facts
An environmental protection equipment company (a national high-tech enterprise) was unable to recover accounts receivable from projects in other provinces, which led to a tight capital chain. It was sued by suppliers and employees, and its operations were in trouble. During the execution procedure, the company had no property available for execution, so the High-Tech Court imposed credit penalties on it and restricted its legal representative from spending too much. In April 2024, the company won the bid for a large-scale project. In order to successfully sign the contract, it applied for the suspension of credit penalties and promised to resolve the debt after making profits. The High-Tech Court reviewed the company's operating conditions and solvency, decided to suspend the punishment, and issued a "Decision on Suspension of Credit Punishment Execution." In May of the same year, the company successfully signed an agreement to resume normal operations, and its debts were steadily paid off. In 2025, the court continued to follow up on the "one enterprise, one policy" approach and adopted a "release the water to raise fish" approach to repair credit. The company signed multiple orders with four listed companies, won the 2024 Hubei Provincial Manufacturing Individual Championship, and resolved debts of 1.88 million yuan. In addition, the company also developed a new industry process, significantly reducing the energy consumption and carbon emissions required for industry equipment operation, and creating more social value.
Typical meaning
This case is a typical practice of the Xiangyang Court to implement the concept of good faith and civilized execution, accurately implement credit repair, and help high-tech enterprises recover and develop. The High-tech Court accurately balances enforcement and enterprise protection with "one enterprise, one policy". Through the economic impact assessment of enterprise-related cases, it prudently suspends credit penalties, embodies the enforcement concept of firmness and softness, and strives for a recovery window for enterprises. At the same time, we actively build a closed credit loop of "discipline-repair-empowerment" to help enterprises restore their "hematopoietic function" and ultimately resolve debts and return to the market. This not only protects the rights and interests of creditors, but also helps enterprises contribute to green development and optimization of the business environment through energy-saving and consumption-reducing technological innovations.
Basic case facts
Wang was enforced by the Fancheng District Court because he failed to fulfill his obligation to repay a construction engineering company as determined by the effective judgment. During the execution process, the court found that Wang had two houses in another place under his name, so it ruled to seal them up and entrusted the foreign court to handle the matter. During this period, the two houses were sold, and Wang had no other property available for execution, so the execution was in trouble. After investigation, it was found that Wang and his wife Ou agreed to divorce during the proceedings of this case, and agreed that the two houses would be owned by Ou. During the execution process, Wang and Ou sold the house. The Fancheng Court informed the person subject to execution that Wang was suspected of transferring assets to evade execution, and explained the legal consequences of refusing to perform the effective judgment document, but Wang still refused to perform. The Fancheng Court then transferred the evidence materials on Wang’s suspicion of refusing to fulfill the judgment and ruling to the public security organs. During the case filing review by the public security organ, Wang took the initiative to negotiate repayment with a construction engineering company that applied for execution. The two parties reached an execution settlement, completed the first installment, and paid subsequent payments in installments.
Typical meaning
This case is a vivid practice for the Xiangyang Court to strengthen enforcement rigidity and protect the legitimate rights and interests of winning companies. The person subject to execution deliberately avoids execution and transfers assets with his spouse through "fake divorce" and other methods and disposes of them without authorization, which is a typical act of refusing execution. Judicial authority cannot be provoked. In response to the behavior of persons subject to execution who maliciously transferred property and evaded debts through divorce, the Fancheng Court used criminal accountability methods and transferred them to the public security organs in accordance with the law. It severely cracked down on breach of trust and refusal to perform, effectively solved the problem of companies having difficulty in recovering money after winning lawsuits, effectively safeguarded judicial authority, and helped build the social integrity system.
Related tags：
