私募權益證券與股東保護法制

Abstract

私募權益證券制度引進我國後，曾於2007年發生展茂公司以低價私募致使股本過分膨脹之情事，凸顯此制度可能有侵害股東權益之虞。為具體知悉侵害股東權益之狀況，本論文自台灣經濟新報取得樣本，統計2009年至今年中約6年期間共524件私募案，扣除部分樣本數據缺漏或期間不足者，統計結果支持：一、發行人有意將定價控制在大於參考價格八成之上之假設；及二、約有五分之一至三分之一之原有股東，其於私募權益證券受到之股本稀釋效果，未能於新股發行兩年後取得彌補。本論文比較美國、澳國與英國法制度後，以為私募權益證券之股東保護法制應可從時間上區分為三個時點，股東優先認股權可於最初避免股權稀釋與伴隨而來的財產權侵害；設定定價下限與募股上限可以減少侵害；不計入關係人投票則強化少數股權之力量。因私募權益證券造成之股東權侵害效果，主要來自膨脹股本的同時稀釋原有股東權益，則設定募股上限可直接限制股份膨脹之數量，不計入關係人投票與提高股東會決議門檻使經營階層不能藉由投票完成稀釋股權之手段以圖利自己或他人之目的，此二者應為我國思考保護股東權益法制之正途。

Private equity placement has been introduced for decades. There was a ridiculous scandal that once the listed company, AMTC, placed a private equity placement at a price lower than 10% of the market price, so that excessively exploded its share capital and undermined shareholders' property right. Exploring how poor the situation the shareholders encounter, I get data from TEJ+ and make a statistic from 2009 to this year, a period of about six years, on 524 private equity placement cases. The results suggest that issuers intend to price precisely above eighty percent of the reference price in the first place; secondly, about one-fifth to one-third of the original shareholders suffering loss from dilution after private equity placement would not get compensation from stock price even two years after the stock release. On comparing the United States, Australia and English law systems about private equity placement, shareholders protecting process could be divided into three categories base on timeline. Firstly, pre-emptive right makes it straightforward to get rid of dilution and property rights infringement; in the second place, setting bottom line of the price and ceiling of numbers of share offered reduces infringement; last but not least, excluding the related persons’ vote strengthens the power of the minorities. The stakeholders used to get interest at the cost of other shareholders’ property right by means of exploding share capital through private equity placement. Therefore, the key concept is to reduce the numbers of share exploded by setting bottom line of the price, or stop the stakeholders from profiting themselves or others at the minorities’ cost with voting exclusion. It would be clear and useful when steps into the way on protecting shareholders' equity.