题目内容
A公司是一家有限责任公司，共有15位股东，其中股东甲持有20%有表决权的股份；股东乙持有15%有表决权的股份；股东丙持有10%有表决权的股份。A公司由于经营不善，连年亏损，净资产已经降至人民币300万元，包括董事长在内的几位董事陆续提出辞职。股东甲提议召开临时股东会，重新选举董事会成员，但董事会和监事会成员对甲的提议均未予理睬，股东甲即自行召集和主持临时股东会。临时股东会首先重新选举董事会成员，股东乙和股东丙联合提议采取累积投票制方式，但未被股东会采纳。最后由股东按照出资比例行使表决权，选举了新的董事会和监事会成员。为解决资金短缺问题，新的董事会提出如下三个方案交股东会审议：方案一，公开发行500万元公司债券；方案二，增加注册资本500万元，由外国B公司认购；方案三，增加注册资本500万元，由全体股东按照原出资比例认购。尽管股东乙和股东丙对第一方案表示反对，但是其他股东仍然一致决议通过了董事会提出的三个方案。在董事会实施上述三个方案时，方案一未能通过国家有关部门核准；方案二未能与B公司达成一致；只有方案三得以实现，并办理了变更手续。董事会决定投资1000万元开发网络游戏，为此，又以公司名下的办公用房作抵押，向C银行贷款500万元，并办理了登记手续。由于种种原因，网络游戏一直未能形成利润，所欠贷款无力偿还，C银行向人民法院申请A公司破产并被受理。案件审理过程中，管理人陆续收到债权人如下请求：①C银行提出，如果A公司被宣告破产，请求就其办公用房拍卖或变卖所得优先清偿所欠的贷款；②D公司提出，在人民法院受理破产申请前3个月时，A公司将一批电脑等设备无偿赠与某网吧，请求撤销该赠与；③E企业提出，对A公司的破产申请受理之前，自己欠A公司20万元劳务费，A公司欠自己20万元货款，请求两者相互抵销；④F律师事务所提出，A公司被申请破产前，由自己代理的诉讼案件发生的5万元律师费尚未支付，请求按破产费用优先支付；⑤C公证处提出，对A公司的破产申请受理之后，因管理人决定是否继续履行合同发生的1万元公证费尚未支付，请求按共益债务优先支付。要求：根据以上事实，并结合相关法律规定，回答下列问题：（1）股东甲是否有权提议召开临时股东会说明理由。（2）股东甲是否有权自行召集和主持临时股东会说明理由。（3）股东乙和股东丙要求采取累积投票制方式是否符合法律规定说明理由。（4）董事会提出的三个方案是否有不合法之处如有，请指出，并说明理由。（5）股东会通过增资方案是否合法说明理由。（6）逐项说明管理人收到的债权人请求是否合法分别说明理由。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
试述会计法的基本原则。
简述审计方法中的顺查法的特征及其优缺点。
第一次债权人会议由管理人或者债权人委员会、占债权总额1/4以上的债权人召集，应在债权申报期限届满后15日内召开。（）
TEXT A The first pre-election poll, or straw vote, as it was then called, was conducted by the Harris bury Pennsylvanian before the 1824 presidential election. This straw vote and the many that followed it really registered nothing but local opinion; however, as communications improved and elections were won by closer and closer margins, newspapers and journals tried desperately to satisfy their readers’ curiosity in more reliable ways. Before the 1928 elections, no fewer than 85 publications made private inquires, generally by means of questionnaires sent to subscribers and by telephone surveys. The principle common to all these inquiries was that they depended on quantity rather than quality; little effort was made to reach representatives of all segments of the population. Still, the erroneous belief persisted that the greater the number of questionnaires, the more accurate the results would be. The record was held by the American monthly Literary Digest, which sent out millions of postcards with short and pointed questions before each election and received many hundreds of thousands of replies. In fact, in 1932, the Literary Digest’s forecast was off by only 1%. In view of such striking achievements, it seemed rather impertinent for the young American journalist, George Gallup, to claim that large numbers were irrelevant and that equally accurate or better predictions could be made with a small but carefully selected sample of the population and a small team of skilled interviewers. In 1936, it took Gallup a long time to convince 35 newspaper editors that his system was much cheaper than the customary mass inquiries and that it could provide surprisingly accurate predictions. The editors finally agreed, on condition that if Gallup’s predictions were less accurate than those obtained by the tried method of the Literary Digest, he would have to refund the entire cost of the investigation. Although the Literary Digest broke its own record by obtaining 2 million replies to its electoral postcards that year, its prediction was wrong by 19%, whereas Gallup’s was off .by less than 1%. Moreover, the Digest had predicted that Alfred M. Landon, the Republican candidate would obtain 56% of the votes cast, whereas Franklin D. Roosevelt was, in fact, re-elected with an unusually large majority. Gallup was one of the few political prophets who predicted this result. Suddenly Gallup’s name was on everyone’s lips, not only was he the prophet of the moment, but it was generally conceded that he had found a new and most important scientific method of prediction. He was showered with money and commissions, and the Gallup Poll became a generic term for public opinion polls. Unlike earlier prophets, Gallup based his investigations on sociological rather than purely arithmetical calculations. He realised that the electorate is made up of different social strata with differing political trends. Thus, farmers do not vote in the same way that industrial workers do, the North votes quite unlike the South, Black preferences vary from those of White persons, the interests of employers are different from those of employees, and so on. There are also voting differences according to age and sex, for it appeared that older people and women tend to vote for conservative parties. Gallup usually sampled his subjects according to six factors: state, size of community, age, sex, income, and political affiliation. From time to time, other factors may be considered; during times of war, for instance, the national origins of electors may be taken into account. Only when the composition of the electorate has been accurately determined can the purely arithmetical question-how many people in each bracket must be interviewed-be solved. Once this is done, laws of probabilities take over and the more people interviewed, the more exact the estimates will be. However, above a certain maximum number of interviews, the accuracy increases by no more than a fractional percentage and where errors of up to 2% are permissible, a few thousand questionnaires will accurately reflect the opinion of the total US electorate. It is true that not all Gallup’s predictions were as accurate as that, for of the 114 election forecasts made by the American Institute of Public Opinion between 1936 and 1944, only 19 were wrong by less than 1%; 39 were off by between 2% and 3%; nearly half were off by more than 3%, and 6 were off by as much as 10% to 15%. The Gallup method suffered its greatest setback during the 1948 presidential election when Truman-not Gallup’s choice, Dewey--was elected. Before Eisenhower’s election in 1952 and re election in 1956 there was less doubt about the outcome, and Gallup did, in fact make fairly accurate predictions. The American results have been excelled by those obtained by Gallup’s British Institute of Public Opinion, which, using the same methods, has managed to forecast a number of parliamentary elections with a margin of error of only one half of 1% . In France, too, the French Institute of Public Opinion has managed to predict parliamentary results with a margin of error that has rarely exceeded 2%. After his more than 20 years’ experience with surveys, it would be fair to say the Gallup’s method of sampling the electorate has proved most successful. Before Gallup, political predictions were no more than shots in the dark, and it is as a result of his achievement that today we can make truly scientific forecasts in this difficult field. Which of the following may be unnecessary in conducting Gallup Poll
微信支付 
支付宝支付