公司僵局法律问题研究
|
摘要
本文围绕完善公司僵局应对体系这一问题,从公司僵局的定义分析入手,进而分析公司僵局的原因、种类、危害,最后提出在社会、司法、法律制度层面完善公司僵局的应对体系。在分析公司僵局定义时,针对目前见著于述的表述均是对公司僵局表面现象的描述这一情况,分析了公司僵局的四个特性,即人合信赖基础的丧失是公司僵局的本质特性、期待利益落空是公司僵局的法律特性、股东董事之间的对抗性和公司僵持状态的严重性与持续性是公司僵局的形式特性、相对利益可能受损是公司僵局的外部特性,进而提出体现公司僵局特性的定义,即:由于公司股东之间人合性的信赖基础丧失,公司股东或董事之间处于一种对抗状态,对公司的重大问题长期无法达成决议,而使公司经营管理长期(或两年以上)处于一种僵持状态,股东期望维系公司独立人格、参与公司事务、实现自己利益的期待利益落空,股东利益受损,股东凭一己之力无法破解或获得有效的救济,相关利益处于一种不确定危险状态的情形。为更好地提出有针对性的应对公司僵局的方案,本文又对公司僵局的原因、种类、危害进行研究,为下文提出章程预设、司法介入强制解散公司的替代方案作了充分的铺垫。在公司僵局的预防——章程预设部分,本文分析了章程预设预防和应对公司僵局的可行性、章程预设的理论基础、我国章程预设的现状,进而提出了利益关系股东、董事表决权回避制度,收购和回购,约定仲裁的章程预设方案。在司法介入强制解散的替代方式部分,对《公司法》第183条将司法介入强制解散作为唯一应对公司僵局措施提出了不同的意见,认为应建立多层次的递进的破解公司僵局体系,在该部分中,本文着重分析了任命临时董事、强制收购、强制分立等替代方式进行了论证。进而在第最后提出了在社会层面加强股东防范和应对公司僵局意识的培养、强化投资者的法制观念的意见;在司法层面提出强调调解和非解散方式优先理念的确立的意见;在法律制度的进一步完善方面提出应确定对《公司法》第183条已有规定强制解散的认定标准、构建包括强制解散和司法介入替代性方式的我国应对公司僵局体系的意见。
The author focuses on the improvement of corporate deadlock. The author begins with the definition of corporate deadlock and then he analyses the cause, the kind, the harm of then. At last, the author offers a system where corporate deadlock can be improved in society, justice and law system. When referring to the definition of the corporation deadlock, with the fact that all the description present is superficial, the author tells four properties of corporate deadlock. They are the natural property of corporation deadlock caused by the lack of the basis of people and trust, the legal property of corporation deadlock caused by the failure in the expected benefits, the formal property of corporation deadlock caused by the antagonism among the stockholders and the seriousness and continuity of the state of corporate deadlock, and the external property of corporate deadlock caused by the likely harm of the relative benefits. These properties embody the definition of corporation deadlock, that is, for lack of the basis of the trust in the corporation between the stockholders, the stockholders are in the state of antagonism and can’t agree on critical problems of the company for long time, and thus makes the corporation in a state of deadlock for a long time ( or for more than 2 years). The stockholders’hope that they can manage affairs on their own, take part in the corporation affairs and gain their own interests fails. The stockholders’benefits are harmed, while they can’t solve the problem or get effective help by themselves and the relative benefits are uncertain and at risk. To offer a better project aimed at the solution to corporate deadlock, the author makes a study on the cause, the kind and the harm of corporate deadlock, fully foreshadowing the following sections of pre-set regulations and the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation. In the section of the prevention of corporation deadlock-----the pre-set regulations, the author analyze the possibility of the effect of the pre-set regulations on the prevention of and reaction to corporate deadlock. In addition, on the basis of theory and the present situation of pre-set regulations in our country, the author recommends a program of pre-set regulations, where he discusses the link between interests and the stockholders, the system of the withdraw of the stockholders’votes, purchase and repurchase, and the arbitration agreement. In the section of the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation, the author gives different opinion from what is in the No. 183 in the Company Law that the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation is the only solution to the corporate deadlock. The author thinks a system with increased levels of structures should be set up to break the corporate deadlock. In this section, the author puts emphasis on the analysis and the argument of the substituted ways, such as appointment of the temporary board, purchase by force and division by force. Then in the seventh section, the author put forward that we should heighten the whole society’s awareness of enhance the board’s prevention to deal with the corporate deadlock and heighten the investors’law awareness; that in justice we should give priority to the emphasis of mediation, not disbanding; and that in the improvement of the law system we should make clear the recognition of the criteria of disbanding by force described in the No. 183 in the Company Law and the author gives his own opinion on setting up a system to deal with the corporate deadlock, including disbanding by force and the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation.
The author focuses on the improvement of corporate deadlock. The author begins with the definition of corporate deadlock and then he analyses the cause, the kind, the harm of then. At last, the author offers a system where corporate deadlock can be improved in society, justice and law system. When referring to the definition of the corporation deadlock, with the fact that all the description present is superficial, the author tells four properties of corporate deadlock. They are the natural property of corporation deadlock caused by the lack of the basis of people and trust, the legal property of corporation deadlock caused by the failure in the expected benefits, the formal property of corporation deadlock caused by the antagonism among the stockholders and the seriousness and continuity of the state of corporate deadlock, and the external property of corporate deadlock caused by the likely harm of the relative benefits. These properties embody the definition of corporation deadlock, that is, for lack of the basis of the trust in the corporation between the stockholders, the stockholders are in the state of antagonism and can’t agree on critical problems of the company for long time, and thus makes the corporation in a state of deadlock for a long time ( or for more than 2 years). The stockholders’hope that they can manage affairs on their own, take part in the corporation affairs and gain their own interests fails. The stockholders’benefits are harmed, while they can’t solve the problem or get effective help by themselves and the relative benefits are uncertain and at risk. To offer a better project aimed at the solution to corporate deadlock, the author makes a study on the cause, the kind and the harm of corporate deadlock, fully foreshadowing the following sections of pre-set regulations and the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation. In the section of the prevention of corporation deadlock-----the pre-set regulations, the author analyze the possibility of the effect of the pre-set regulations on the prevention of and reaction to corporate deadlock. In addition, on the basis of theory and the present situation of pre-set regulations in our country, the author recommends a program of pre-set regulations, where he discusses the link between interests and the stockholders, the system of the withdraw of the stockholders’votes, purchase and repurchase, and the arbitration agreement. In the section of the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation, the author gives different opinion from what is in the No. 183 in the Company Law that the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation is the only solution to the corporate deadlock. The author thinks a system with increased levels of structures should be set up to break the corporate deadlock. In this section, the author puts emphasis on the analysis and the argument of the substituted ways, such as appointment of the temporary board, purchase by force and division by force. Then in the seventh section, the author put forward that we should heighten the whole society’s awareness of enhance the board’s prevention to deal with the corporate deadlock and heighten the investors’law awareness; that in justice we should give priority to the emphasis of mediation, not disbanding; and that in the improvement of the law system we should make clear the recognition of the criteria of disbanding by force described in the No. 183 in the Company Law and the author gives his own opinion on setting up a system to deal with the corporate deadlock, including disbanding by force and the substituted project of the justice’s forcing to disband the corporation.
引文
1江平、李国江:《最新公司法疑难释解》,人民法院出版社2006年1月出版,p653页。
2鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
3同上。
4曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
5李泫永、官欣荣《公司僵局与司法救济》,《法学》2004年第3期。
6曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
7鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
8钟淑键:《论公司僵局与公司解散、清算制度》,中国民商法律网,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/Article/default.asp?id=26388,(访问日期:2008年10月29日)
9李国光、王闯:《审理公司诉讼案件的若干问题-贯彻实施修订后的公司法的司法思考(下)》,《人民法院报》,2005年12月5日。
10曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
11栾巩:《公司社会责任辩—兼论中国公司法的立法选择》,载王保树主编《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社,p461页。
12鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
13同上。
14同上。
15爱森伯格:《公司法的结构》(张开平译),载王保树主编,《商事法论集》第3卷,法律出版社,1999年版,p391页。
16同上p393页。
17鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
18同上。
19徐洪涛:《论有限责任公司中的压制和救济》,载王保树主编《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社,p556页。
20同上。
21叶林、郭丹:《试论“打破公司僵局”》,《广东社会科学》2008年第4期。
22赵旭东:《公司法学》,高等教育出版社,2003年版,p342页。
23孙谦、李舒啸:《“人合性”和“资合性”要素的丧失是判断公司司法解散的标准》,人民法院报,2006年12月27日第6版。
1、江平、李国江:《最新公司法疑难释解》,人民法院出版社2006年1月出版。
2、赵旭东:《公司法学》,高等教育出版社,2003年版。
1、王保树主编:《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社。
2、王保树主编:《商事法论集》第3卷。法律出版社,1999年版。
1、曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,载《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期.
2、李泫永、官欣荣《公司僵局与司法救济》,载《法学》2004年第3期。
3、鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
4、叶林、郭丹:《试论“打破公司僵局”》,载《广东社会科学》2008年第4期。
1、李国光、王闯:《审理公司诉讼案件的若干问题-贯彻实施修订后的公司法的司法思考(下)》,载《人民法院报》,2005年12月5日。
2、孙谦、李舒啸:《“人合性”和“资合性”要素的丧失是判断公司司法解散的标准》,载人民法院报,2006年12月27日。
钟淑键:《论公司僵局与公司解散、清算制度》。中国民商法律网,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/Article/default.asp?id=26388,(访问日期:2008年10月29日)。
2鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
3同上。
4曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
5李泫永、官欣荣《公司僵局与司法救济》,《法学》2004年第3期。
6曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
7鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
8钟淑键:《论公司僵局与公司解散、清算制度》,中国民商法律网,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/Article/default.asp?id=26388,(访问日期:2008年10月29日)
9李国光、王闯:《审理公司诉讼案件的若干问题-贯彻实施修订后的公司法的司法思考(下)》,《人民法院报》,2005年12月5日。
10曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期。
11栾巩:《公司社会责任辩—兼论中国公司法的立法选择》,载王保树主编《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社,p461页。
12鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
13同上。
14同上。
15爱森伯格:《公司法的结构》(张开平译),载王保树主编,《商事法论集》第3卷,法律出版社,1999年版,p391页。
16同上p393页。
17鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,《法商研究》2005年第3期。
18同上。
19徐洪涛:《论有限责任公司中的压制和救济》,载王保树主编《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社,p556页。
20同上。
21叶林、郭丹:《试论“打破公司僵局”》,《广东社会科学》2008年第4期。
22赵旭东:《公司法学》,高等教育出版社,2003年版,p342页。
23孙谦、李舒啸:《“人合性”和“资合性”要素的丧失是判断公司司法解散的标准》,人民法院报,2006年12月27日第6版。
1、江平、李国江:《最新公司法疑难释解》,人民法院出版社2006年1月出版。
2、赵旭东:《公司法学》,高等教育出版社,2003年版。
1、王保树主编:《转型中的公司法的现代化》,社会科学文献出版社。
2、王保树主编:《商事法论集》第3卷。法律出版社,1999年版。
1、曾东红、宋佑光:《论有限责任公司僵局及其应对》,载《中山大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第3期.
2、李泫永、官欣荣《公司僵局与司法救济》,载《法学》2004年第3期。
3、鲍为民:《美国法上的公司僵局处理制度及其启示》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
4、叶林、郭丹:《试论“打破公司僵局”》,载《广东社会科学》2008年第4期。
1、李国光、王闯:《审理公司诉讼案件的若干问题-贯彻实施修订后的公司法的司法思考(下)》,载《人民法院报》,2005年12月5日。
2、孙谦、李舒啸:《“人合性”和“资合性”要素的丧失是判断公司司法解散的标准》,载人民法院报,2006年12月27日。
钟淑键:《论公司僵局与公司解散、清算制度》。中国民商法律网,http://www.civillaw.com.cn/Article/default.asp?id=26388,(访问日期:2008年10月29日)。