公司在股东派生诉讼中法律地位研究
|
摘要
股东派生诉讼又称股东代表诉讼、股东代位诉讼是世界上主要市场经济国家公司法强化公司治理结构、加强对公司经营层的控制最终保护公司和中小股东权益的一项重要制度。股东派生诉讼制度涉及到的问题很多。我国新公司法虽然建立了股东派生诉讼制度,但从理论研究到实际操作还很不完善,相应的配套规定也尚未规定,而该制度中非常重要的问题——当事人及公司的地位如何设计,成为该制度急需解决的问题。笔者通过历史分析、比较分析等方法,通过对国外股东派生诉讼中相关制度的研究,建议我国尽快通过立法建立相应的股东派生诉讼当事人地位的规定,希望能抛砖引玉。
The nature of the company is just a tool of Shareholder investments. The shareholders of a company shall be entitled to enjoy the ownership and interest of the company. To design the system of the company, we should always implement the philosophy of shareholder-oriented so as to protect the benefit of the shareholders to maximize from all levels. Shareholder-oriented does not mean that the management of the company should be operated by the Shareholder themselves. The basic principles to operate the modern company are the Separation between the Shareholder and Staff who manage the company. The Shareholders appoint the professionals as the director or manager of the company to operating the business actually. The director or manager must bear loyal and diligent liability for the company, when breach of duty that cause any property loss, the Companies should take all possible measures actively to prevent the expansion of the loss, and claim compensation of the damage which has already happened. If the company do nothing to exercise this right, shareholders,as the ownership of the company, may exercise a filing of a lawsuit for damage claim, When the company refuses to lodge a lawsuit after it receives a request of the shareholders, Shareholders, may have the right to sue on behalf of themselves. The reason why it is referred to as derivative lawsuits is that the right of action exercised by the shareholders comes from the company, not from the shareholders themselves. Shareholders do this on behalf of the company, not on behalf of themselves. In the nature, derivative lawsuits exercised by the shareholders are done for the company. It is similar to the civil law-suit on behalf of creditors. Since the derivative lawsuit instituted by the shareholders is in essence to the interests of all shareholders, therefore it is similar to the procedural law of class actions. The vested interests which won by the lawsuit are belong to the company who enjoys the rights and entity interests of derivative lawsuit. The outcome of the proceedings belongs to the company directly, not to the shareholders. Favorable determination causes statutory obligation that the accused should make the payment to the company. Adverse determination would limit the further prosecution by the company. In addition to the substantive rights, the exercising of the right of the derivative lawsuit also replaces and restricts the right to appeal directly and the right to act the company's debt. As the proceedings of the derivative lawsuit impact on the company's rights and rights of action, based on the principle of due process, one party has the right to impact on the proceedings and the outcome of the suit when the conduct of the proceedings of the suit would inevitably have an impact on the rights of this party. That is to say, the party has the right of participating in the proceedings and to claim or defend the subject of litigation. Then in the derivative lawsuit, the company should have the status of the proceedings is beyond doubt. The problem is what is the legal status of the company involved in derivative lawsuit? Which rights of action to be enjoyed and which Obligations to be committed? Legislation from every country gives the different answers, and even some answers are significant different. There are no provisions given by Company Law of the People's Republic of China to the questions stated above. The court's practice is also inconsistent. It is necessary to carry out the thorough discussion in theory. In this thesis, through the methods of comparative study in chief, it studies the litigants system of derivative lawsuit in the United States, South Korea, Japan and China's Taiwan region. And also, based on China's legislative and judicial practice, it discusses the provisions in the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. On this basis, it proposes amendments for the legal status of the company involved in derivative lawsuit. In addition to the introduction of this thesis, the thesis is divided into five sections, now these are summarized as follows:
The first section: Outline of the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. In this section, the author tries to introduce the conception and origin of the shareholder derivative lawsuit, analyzing its characteristics. So that readers may derive the shareholder derivative lawsuit as a whole.
The second sections: the plaintiff and defendant in the shareholder derivative lawsuit. In this section, it discusses that how to determine the plaintiff and the defendant in a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the common law or civil law countries. As to qualifications of the plaintiff in the shareholder derivative lawsuit, restrictions are in three aspects: Shareholding time, shareholding ratio by the shareholder of the plaintiff, as well as the fairness of the proceedings. As to qualifications of the defendant in the shareholder derivative lawsuit, they are liberal or strict in the legislation from every country, Such as free legislation style represented by the USA, and limit type represented by Japan.
The third sections: status of the company in the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. Whether (or not) and in what capacity should the company be involved in derivative lawsuits, Legislation from every country are widely divergent, and there are no provisions in the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. In this section, the author elaborates in detail the reason that the company's shareholders should participate in the derivative lawsuit. On the basis of comparative analysis of the legislation between it is in civil law country and in common law country, being combined with China's theory and practice in civil litigation, it tries to bring up that science the Purpose of shareholders participating in the derivative lawsuit and the types of cases are always not the same, the style of their participating in its proceedings are always made diffidence. It is needed to research respectively that the company participating in the derivative lawsuit in deferent situation. The company is the Party who has multiple identities. 1. The company is the plaintiff in essence in representative action, Shareholder litigation is on behalf of the company that the court's decision is on the binding to the company. The vested interests which won by the lawsuit are belong to the company who enjoys the entity benefit. 2. The company also could be third party. In the proceedings, if the company considers that there exists something conspire maliciously between the Shareholder and the defendant, which damages to the interests of the company, it may apply to join the lawsuit actively. However, the only reason of the company’s Participate in the proceedings is for preventing a negative outcome from the litigation. So it is such a third party which has no independent claim to the object of action. Therefore, when shareholders lodge a representative lawsuit in the court, the company may participate in the proceedings for the following two circumstances:
The first circumstance is that the company considers it is proper to lodges such a lawsuit in the court, through which the company may achieve their own rights to the accused, but it is needed to prevent a negative outcome from the litigation.
The second circumstance is that the company considers it is not proper to lodges such a lawsuit in the court, the company wishes to participate in the proceedings in order to defense the improper conduct of lawsuit lodged by the shareholder and protect the rights and interests of the company. In those both cases, the form that the company participates in the proceedings of the shareholder representative lawsuit are not the same; in the first circumstance, the company has the status of Co-plaintiff, and in the second circumstance, called the third party which has no independent claim to the object of action.
The forth sections: status of the other Shareholders in the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. The rights of appeal exercising by the Shareholders belong to the company. In theory, therefore, all the parties of shareholders in civil litigation shall have equal litigation rights. When a shareholder or shareholders lodge(s) such a lawsuit in the court, other shareholders also have the same rights to sue in the same incident, which can not be deprived. However, for the reason of efficiency considerations, many countries restrict to sue in the same incident after a shareholder or shareholders lodge(s) such a lawsuit in the court. In this section, the author makes the comparative analysis of the major national legislation and proposes the legislation designed of status of the other Shareholders in the lawsuit.
The fifth sections: the lack of the provision of Shareholder derivative lawsuit stated in The Company Law of the People's Republic of China; and legislative proposals.Only in Article 152 of the Company Law, there is a provision of Shareholder derivative lawsuit; and its specific content are too principally and abstract, lacking in procedural requirements, with the result that the system’s Operability is not strong. In this section, respectively from the theoretical and practical point of view, the author tries to analyze the lack of the provision of such question in our Company Law, and to give the legislative proposals that how to improve our shareholder derivative lawsuit system.
The nature of the company is just a tool of Shareholder investments. The shareholders of a company shall be entitled to enjoy the ownership and interest of the company. To design the system of the company, we should always implement the philosophy of shareholder-oriented so as to protect the benefit of the shareholders to maximize from all levels. Shareholder-oriented does not mean that the management of the company should be operated by the Shareholder themselves. The basic principles to operate the modern company are the Separation between the Shareholder and Staff who manage the company. The Shareholders appoint the professionals as the director or manager of the company to operating the business actually. The director or manager must bear loyal and diligent liability for the company, when breach of duty that cause any property loss, the Companies should take all possible measures actively to prevent the expansion of the loss, and claim compensation of the damage which has already happened. If the company do nothing to exercise this right, shareholders,as the ownership of the company, may exercise a filing of a lawsuit for damage claim, When the company refuses to lodge a lawsuit after it receives a request of the shareholders, Shareholders, may have the right to sue on behalf of themselves. The reason why it is referred to as derivative lawsuits is that the right of action exercised by the shareholders comes from the company, not from the shareholders themselves. Shareholders do this on behalf of the company, not on behalf of themselves. In the nature, derivative lawsuits exercised by the shareholders are done for the company. It is similar to the civil law-suit on behalf of creditors. Since the derivative lawsuit instituted by the shareholders is in essence to the interests of all shareholders, therefore it is similar to the procedural law of class actions. The vested interests which won by the lawsuit are belong to the company who enjoys the rights and entity interests of derivative lawsuit. The outcome of the proceedings belongs to the company directly, not to the shareholders. Favorable determination causes statutory obligation that the accused should make the payment to the company. Adverse determination would limit the further prosecution by the company. In addition to the substantive rights, the exercising of the right of the derivative lawsuit also replaces and restricts the right to appeal directly and the right to act the company's debt. As the proceedings of the derivative lawsuit impact on the company's rights and rights of action, based on the principle of due process, one party has the right to impact on the proceedings and the outcome of the suit when the conduct of the proceedings of the suit would inevitably have an impact on the rights of this party. That is to say, the party has the right of participating in the proceedings and to claim or defend the subject of litigation. Then in the derivative lawsuit, the company should have the status of the proceedings is beyond doubt. The problem is what is the legal status of the company involved in derivative lawsuit? Which rights of action to be enjoyed and which Obligations to be committed? Legislation from every country gives the different answers, and even some answers are significant different. There are no provisions given by Company Law of the People's Republic of China to the questions stated above. The court's practice is also inconsistent. It is necessary to carry out the thorough discussion in theory. In this thesis, through the methods of comparative study in chief, it studies the litigants system of derivative lawsuit in the United States, South Korea, Japan and China's Taiwan region. And also, based on China's legislative and judicial practice, it discusses the provisions in the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. On this basis, it proposes amendments for the legal status of the company involved in derivative lawsuit. In addition to the introduction of this thesis, the thesis is divided into five sections, now these are summarized as follows:
The first section: Outline of the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. In this section, the author tries to introduce the conception and origin of the shareholder derivative lawsuit, analyzing its characteristics. So that readers may derive the shareholder derivative lawsuit as a whole.
The second sections: the plaintiff and defendant in the shareholder derivative lawsuit. In this section, it discusses that how to determine the plaintiff and the defendant in a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the common law or civil law countries. As to qualifications of the plaintiff in the shareholder derivative lawsuit, restrictions are in three aspects: Shareholding time, shareholding ratio by the shareholder of the plaintiff, as well as the fairness of the proceedings. As to qualifications of the defendant in the shareholder derivative lawsuit, they are liberal or strict in the legislation from every country, Such as free legislation style represented by the USA, and limit type represented by Japan.
The third sections: status of the company in the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. Whether (or not) and in what capacity should the company be involved in derivative lawsuits, Legislation from every country are widely divergent, and there are no provisions in the Company Law of the People's Republic of China. In this section, the author elaborates in detail the reason that the company's shareholders should participate in the derivative lawsuit. On the basis of comparative analysis of the legislation between it is in civil law country and in common law country, being combined with China's theory and practice in civil litigation, it tries to bring up that science the Purpose of shareholders participating in the derivative lawsuit and the types of cases are always not the same, the style of their participating in its proceedings are always made diffidence. It is needed to research respectively that the company participating in the derivative lawsuit in deferent situation. The company is the Party who has multiple identities. 1. The company is the plaintiff in essence in representative action, Shareholder litigation is on behalf of the company that the court's decision is on the binding to the company. The vested interests which won by the lawsuit are belong to the company who enjoys the entity benefit. 2. The company also could be third party. In the proceedings, if the company considers that there exists something conspire maliciously between the Shareholder and the defendant, which damages to the interests of the company, it may apply to join the lawsuit actively. However, the only reason of the company’s Participate in the proceedings is for preventing a negative outcome from the litigation. So it is such a third party which has no independent claim to the object of action. Therefore, when shareholders lodge a representative lawsuit in the court, the company may participate in the proceedings for the following two circumstances:
The first circumstance is that the company considers it is proper to lodges such a lawsuit in the court, through which the company may achieve their own rights to the accused, but it is needed to prevent a negative outcome from the litigation.
The second circumstance is that the company considers it is not proper to lodges such a lawsuit in the court, the company wishes to participate in the proceedings in order to defense the improper conduct of lawsuit lodged by the shareholder and protect the rights and interests of the company. In those both cases, the form that the company participates in the proceedings of the shareholder representative lawsuit are not the same; in the first circumstance, the company has the status of Co-plaintiff, and in the second circumstance, called the third party which has no independent claim to the object of action.
The forth sections: status of the other Shareholders in the Shareholder derivative lawsuit. The rights of appeal exercising by the Shareholders belong to the company. In theory, therefore, all the parties of shareholders in civil litigation shall have equal litigation rights. When a shareholder or shareholders lodge(s) such a lawsuit in the court, other shareholders also have the same rights to sue in the same incident, which can not be deprived. However, for the reason of efficiency considerations, many countries restrict to sue in the same incident after a shareholder or shareholders lodge(s) such a lawsuit in the court. In this section, the author makes the comparative analysis of the major national legislation and proposes the legislation designed of status of the other Shareholders in the lawsuit.
The fifth sections: the lack of the provision of Shareholder derivative lawsuit stated in The Company Law of the People's Republic of China; and legislative proposals.Only in Article 152 of the Company Law, there is a provision of Shareholder derivative lawsuit; and its specific content are too principally and abstract, lacking in procedural requirements, with the result that the system’s Operability is not strong. In this section, respectively from the theoretical and practical point of view, the author tries to analyze the lack of the provision of such question in our Company Law, and to give the legislative proposals that how to improve our shareholder derivative lawsuit system.
引文
[1]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编:《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第85页。
[2]曾培芳、盛建明:《英国公司法中得派生诉讼初探——少数股东权利的救济之一》,载《南京理工大学学报》(社科版)1999年第3期,第38页。
[3]曾培芳、盛建明:《英国公司法中得派生诉讼初探——少数股东权利的救济之一》,载《南京理工大学学报》(社科版)1999年第3期,第38页。
[4]黄辉:《股东派生诉讼研究》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第7卷),法律出版社2002年第1版,第343页。
[5]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第92页。
[6]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第93页。
[7]参见金剑锋:《股东派生诉讼制度研究》,载奚晓明主编《民商事审判指导》2006年第2辑,第58页。
[8]周剑龙:《日本的股东代表诉讼制度》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第2卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第273页。
[9]刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版,第323页。
[10]卞耀武主编:《日本国商法》,付黎旭、吴民译,法律出版社2000年第1版,第93页。
[11]吴新平、高旭晨:《台湾公司法》,中国对外经济贸易出版社1991年第1版,第84页。
[12]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),第97页,第104页。
[13]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第97页。
[14]《德国股份公司法》第147条第一款。
[15]参见张民安:《公司少数股东的法律救济》,载《法制与社会发展》1995年第3期,第41页。
[16]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第110页。
[17]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第97、109页。
[18]刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版,第331、332页。
[19]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第101页。
[20]李静:《论我国股东派生诉讼制度的构建》,载《安阳师范学院学报》2002年第3期,第16页。
[21]张民安:《现代英美董事法律地位研究》,法律出版社2000年第1版,第153页。
[22]王文书:《股东派生诉讼制度研究》(上),“北京律师在线网”,http://www.guquan.net/printage.asp?articleID=1334,2008年7月6日。
[23]陶军:《股东派生诉讼法律制度研究》,载《江汉大学学报》2005年第1期,第110页。
[24]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2004年版,第323页。
[25]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2004年版,第95页。
[26]转引自武晋伟:《股东代表诉讼浅析》,载《湖南大学学报》(社会科学版)2005年第5期,第120页。
[27]李宁顺:《股东代表诉讼当事人制度研究》,载《求索》2006年第6期,第136页。
[28]黄文艺:《论当代西方比较法学的发展》,载《比较法研究》2002年第1期,第1页。
[29]王岩:《略论股东派生诉讼的当事人》,载《前沿》2002年第11期,第121页。
[30]孙玉凤:《论股东代表诉讼中公司的法律地位》,载《湖北大学学报》(哲社版)2005年3月32卷第2期,第166页。
[31]齐奇:《公司法疑难问题解析》,法律出版社2006年第3版,第149页。
[32]李广山、李和平:《股东派生诉讼主体法律地位探讨》,载《特区经济》2005年第9期,第211页。
[33]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第95页。
[34]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第96页。
[35]依照我国《公司法》第152条第2款的规定,股东向公司提出诉讼申请后,公司应在30日内作出是否亲自起诉的决定,即《公司法》赋予公司的调查期间只有30天。期待公司在短短的1个月期间对案件作充分的调查研究存在一定的困难。
[36]何文燕、廖永安:《民事诉讼理论与改革的探索》,中国检察出版社2002年第1版,第235页。
[37]周剑龙:《日本的股东代表诉讼制度》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第2辑),法律出版社1997年第1版,第260页。
[38]《日本民事诉讼法》第47条第1款。
[39]田平安:《民事诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第115页。
[40]蔡元庆:《股东代表诉讼中公司的诉讼参加问题研究》,载《华东政法学院学报》2007年第2期,第43页。
[41]安建主编:《中华人民共和国公司法释义》,法律出版社2005年第1版,第218页。
[42]陈南男:《构建我国股东派生诉讼制度之若干建议》,载《湖南行政学院学报》2004年第4期,第77页。
[43]许红霞:《论公司在股东派生诉讼中的地位》,载《商场现代化》2008年第6期,第286页。
[44]李建伟:《论公司在股东代位诉讼中的地》,载《中央政法管理干部学院学报》1998年第6期,第43页。
1.胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,《法学研究》2004年第4期。
2.李宁顺:《股东代表诉讼当事人制度研究》,《求索》2006年第6期。
3.黄文艺:《论当代西方比较法学的发展》,《比较法研究》2002年第1期。
4.王岩:《略论股东派生诉讼的当事人》,《前沿》2002年第11期。
5.李广山、李和平:《股东派生诉讼主体法律地位探讨》,《特区经济》2005年第9期。
6.李勇:《浅议股东派生诉讼》,《法学研究》2005年第3期。
1.王保树:《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2002年第1版。
2.王保树:《商事法论集》(第2卷),法律出版社1997年第1版。
3.王保树:《商事法论集》(第7卷),法律出版社2002年第1版。
4.刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版。
5.卞耀武主编:《日本国商法》,付黎旭、吴民译,法律出版社2000年第1版。
6.吴新平、高旭晨:《台湾公司法》,中国对外经济贸易出版社1991年第1版。
7. [韩]李哲松:《韩国公司法》,中国政法大学出版社2000年第1版。
8.张民安:《现代英美董事法律地位研究》,法律出版社2000年第1版。
9.齐奇:《公司法疑难问题解析》,法律出版社2006年第3版。
10.何文燕、廖永安:《民事诉讼理论与改革的探索》,中国检察出版社2002年第1版。
11.田平安:《民事诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
12.卞耀武主编:《当代外国公司法》,法律出版社1995年第1版。
13.安建主编:《中华人民共和国公司法释义》,法律出版社2005年版第1版。
[2]曾培芳、盛建明:《英国公司法中得派生诉讼初探——少数股东权利的救济之一》,载《南京理工大学学报》(社科版)1999年第3期,第38页。
[3]曾培芳、盛建明:《英国公司法中得派生诉讼初探——少数股东权利的救济之一》,载《南京理工大学学报》(社科版)1999年第3期,第38页。
[4]黄辉:《股东派生诉讼研究》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第7卷),法律出版社2002年第1版,第343页。
[5]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第92页。
[6]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第93页。
[7]参见金剑锋:《股东派生诉讼制度研究》,载奚晓明主编《民商事审判指导》2006年第2辑,第58页。
[8]周剑龙:《日本的股东代表诉讼制度》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第2卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第273页。
[9]刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版,第323页。
[10]卞耀武主编:《日本国商法》,付黎旭、吴民译,法律出版社2000年第1版,第93页。
[11]吴新平、高旭晨:《台湾公司法》,中国对外经济贸易出版社1991年第1版,第84页。
[12]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),第97页,第104页。
[13]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第97页。
[14]《德国股份公司法》第147条第一款。
[15]参见张民安:《公司少数股东的法律救济》,载《法制与社会发展》1995年第3期,第41页。
[16]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第110页。
[17]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第97、109页。
[18]刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版,第331、332页。
[19]胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,载《法学研究》2004年第4期,第101页。
[20]李静:《论我国股东派生诉讼制度的构建》,载《安阳师范学院学报》2002年第3期,第16页。
[21]张民安:《现代英美董事法律地位研究》,法律出版社2000年第1版,第153页。
[22]王文书:《股东派生诉讼制度研究》(上),“北京律师在线网”,http://www.guquan.net/printage.asp?articleID=1334,2008年7月6日。
[23]陶军:《股东派生诉讼法律制度研究》,载《江汉大学学报》2005年第1期,第110页。
[24]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2004年版,第323页。
[25]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2004年版,第95页。
[26]转引自武晋伟:《股东代表诉讼浅析》,载《湖南大学学报》(社会科学版)2005年第5期,第120页。
[27]李宁顺:《股东代表诉讼当事人制度研究》,载《求索》2006年第6期,第136页。
[28]黄文艺:《论当代西方比较法学的发展》,载《比较法研究》2002年第1期,第1页。
[29]王岩:《略论股东派生诉讼的当事人》,载《前沿》2002年第11期,第121页。
[30]孙玉凤:《论股东代表诉讼中公司的法律地位》,载《湖北大学学报》(哲社版)2005年3月32卷第2期,第166页。
[31]齐奇:《公司法疑难问题解析》,法律出版社2006年第3版,第149页。
[32]李广山、李和平:《股东派生诉讼主体法律地位探讨》,载《特区经济》2005年第9期,第211页。
[33]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第95页。
[34]刘俊海:《论股东的代表诉讼提起权》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社1997年第1版,第96页。
[35]依照我国《公司法》第152条第2款的规定,股东向公司提出诉讼申请后,公司应在30日内作出是否亲自起诉的决定,即《公司法》赋予公司的调查期间只有30天。期待公司在短短的1个月期间对案件作充分的调查研究存在一定的困难。
[36]何文燕、廖永安:《民事诉讼理论与改革的探索》,中国检察出版社2002年第1版,第235页。
[37]周剑龙:《日本的股东代表诉讼制度》,载王保树主编《商事法论集》(第2辑),法律出版社1997年第1版,第260页。
[38]《日本民事诉讼法》第47条第1款。
[39]田平安:《民事诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第115页。
[40]蔡元庆:《股东代表诉讼中公司的诉讼参加问题研究》,载《华东政法学院学报》2007年第2期,第43页。
[41]安建主编:《中华人民共和国公司法释义》,法律出版社2005年第1版,第218页。
[42]陈南男:《构建我国股东派生诉讼制度之若干建议》,载《湖南行政学院学报》2004年第4期,第77页。
[43]许红霞:《论公司在股东派生诉讼中的地位》,载《商场现代化》2008年第6期,第286页。
[44]李建伟:《论公司在股东代位诉讼中的地》,载《中央政法管理干部学院学报》1998年第6期,第43页。
1.胡滨、曹顺明:《股东派生诉讼的合理性基础与制度设计》,《法学研究》2004年第4期。
2.李宁顺:《股东代表诉讼当事人制度研究》,《求索》2006年第6期。
3.黄文艺:《论当代西方比较法学的发展》,《比较法研究》2002年第1期。
4.王岩:《略论股东派生诉讼的当事人》,《前沿》2002年第11期。
5.李广山、李和平:《股东派生诉讼主体法律地位探讨》,《特区经济》2005年第9期。
6.李勇:《浅议股东派生诉讼》,《法学研究》2005年第3期。
1.王保树:《商事法论集》(第1卷),法律出版社2002年第1版。
2.王保树:《商事法论集》(第2卷),法律出版社1997年第1版。
3.王保树:《商事法论集》(第7卷),法律出版社2002年第1版。
4.刘俊海:《股份有限公司股东权的保护》,法律出版社2004年第2版。
5.卞耀武主编:《日本国商法》,付黎旭、吴民译,法律出版社2000年第1版。
6.吴新平、高旭晨:《台湾公司法》,中国对外经济贸易出版社1991年第1版。
7. [韩]李哲松:《韩国公司法》,中国政法大学出版社2000年第1版。
8.张民安:《现代英美董事法律地位研究》,法律出版社2000年第1版。
9.齐奇:《公司法疑难问题解析》,法律出版社2006年第3版。
10.何文燕、廖永安:《民事诉讼理论与改革的探索》,中国检察出版社2002年第1版。
11.田平安:《民事诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
12.卞耀武主编:《当代外国公司法》,法律出版社1995年第1版。
13.安建主编:《中华人民共和国公司法释义》,法律出版社2005年版第1版。