Former legal representatives of several enterprises were affected by consumption restrictions and related enforcement measures involving more than ten courts and dozens of cases. They retained Li Shu’s team to examine the grounds for the measures and seek their lawful removal or correction.
The team organized the enforcement instruments, changes of office, appointment history and actual control relationships for each case. It distinguished personal judgment-debtor status from restrictions arising out of a corporate case and separately examined any dishonesty listing, preparing measure-specific applications.
Relying on the relevant principles of proportionate and civilized enforcement, the lawyers submitted evidence on whether the clients remained actual controllers or persons directly affecting performance of the debts. They maintained communication with the courts and tracked the outcome of each application.
According to YunTing and the original case account, the consumption restrictions and dishonesty records within the instructed matters were ultimately removed or corrected. This describes the cases handled; it does not mean that a change of legal representative automatically removes every measure.
Rule clarification: restrictions on a company’s legal representative do not necessarily make that person the debtor for the underlying corporate obligation. Consumption restrictions and inclusion on the dishonest judgment-debtor list are also distinct measures. A former representative seeking relief must provide the relevant evidence on office, actual control and influence over performance for the enforcement court to examine.
In practice, the case number, type of measure, affected person, changes of status and decision should be checked separately. Applications and responses should be retained so that relief in some cases is not mistaken for removal of all restrictions.
Reference: Supreme People’s Court explanation of proportionate enforcement rules (Chinese).