請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91720
標題: | 論股東協議之有效性——以股東控制協議及股份轉讓限制協議為中心 The Validity of Shareholder Control Agreement and Share Transfer Restriction Agreement |
作者: | 顏聖杰 Sheng-Jie Yan |
指導教授: | 蔡英欣 Ying-Hsin Tsai |
關鍵字: | 股東協議,股東控制協議,股份轉讓限制協議,章程限制股份轉讓,閉鎖性公司,股東協議與章程, Shareholder Agreement,Shareholder Control Agreement,Share Transfer Restriction Agreement,Articles of Incorporation Restricting Share Transfer,Close Corporation,Shareholder Agreement and Articles of Incorporation, |
出版年 : | 2023 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 經過實務及學說的長期碰撞,表決權拘束契約已為我國所熟悉,更於2018年以立法嘗試解決紛爭,然作為其上位概念之「股東協議」,所受之關注卻大不如表決權拘束契約。問題在於,商業實務上並不乏股東間就表決權以外之其他事項而為約定,如藉由私人間協議以調整公司的組織架構的「股東控制協議」,或限制轉讓的「股份轉讓限制協議」等,對於此等協議之要件及有效性審查,不僅在我國法下欠缺原則性的規範,司法實務亦多將不同類型之股東協議混為一談而未為正確的區辨,此舉將可能有害於公司治理,亦不符合公司所需。
自比較法的角度觀之,股東協議在美國百年來的發展中,累積無數代表性案例,並持續影響至今,且形成完整的成文法規範,其中關於涉及股東控制協議的閉鎖性公司制度,主要分為兩大立法模式:統一模式及專屬模式。專屬模式雖然克服了如何定義「閉鎖性」的難題,卻未如預期吸引閉鎖性公司的新設或變更,更造成法律解釋下產生更多問題,包含:制度設計過於複雜、非法定閉鎖性公司股東協議之效力不明以及多數主義的濫用;相較之下,統一模式所採取的「補救性立法」更符合閉鎖性公司之需求,並在制度上避免了對少數股東的侵害。另外,就股份轉讓限制的部分,美國法透過形式要件的要求,使轉讓限制因公示性而產生對抗第三人之效力,藉以發揮轉讓限制之實效,同時以合理性要件與法院在案例法中所發展之具體審查標準相互搭配,平衡股份轉讓自由及公司閉鎖性間之衝突。 除美國法外,日本法下之股東協議發展亦甚早,且其脈絡與我國相似,皆是在有限公司制度的法規範下,以表決權拘束契約開啟股東協議的討論,惟在舊商法轉換為公司法後,日本公司法將有限公司併入股份有限公司,改為提供更彈性的架構設計以利閉鎖性公司股東得以擇其所需,值得我國未來公司法大修時之參考;此外,日本公司法明定章程得訂有股份轉讓限制,並賦予受限制者享有請求收買的權利,亦是在維持公司閉鎖性的同時,保障股份轉讓自由。 在比較外國法例,並審視我國法及實務見解的現況後,本文之主張有三:其一為就股東控制協議,應參酌統一模式的立法制度,以書面及公示性作為形式要件,並原則上要求須經全體股東同意,例外在當事人間證明沒有對於少數股東造成壓迫,或是協議係由絕大多數股東所做成時,肯認股東控制協議之效力,以期得提供所有具閉鎖性質的公司皆享有彈性的公司架構設計,而不會以破壞公司治理作為代價。再者,現行法應開放所有非公開發行之股份有限公司得依照各自的需求,於章程設置股份轉讓限制,且新增收買制度以保障股份轉讓自由,避免專屬模式的立法所產生不符合閉鎖性公司需求的情形,又應輔以合理性要件限縮公司濫權之風險。最後,股份轉讓限制協議的未來規範中,應該引進美國法之公示制度,使其可以產生對世效力,如此一來不僅得保障交易安全,同時發揮限制股份轉讓之實效,避免無實益的損害賠償;此外,與章程限制相同,股份轉讓限制協議也應透過合理性要件的限制,以防止多數股東的侵害。 After collisions between practice and theory, the concept of “pooling agreement” has become well-established in our country. However, “shareholders' agreements” as its broader concept have not received as much attention as “pooling agreement”. The problem is that in business practice, shareholders often enter into agreements on matters other than voting rights. These agreements may involve private arrangements to adjust the company's organizational structure, known as “shareholder control agreements”, or restrictions on share transfers, referred to as “share transfer restriction agreements”. Not only is there a lack of principle regulation on the requirements and validity of these agreements under current law, but in judicial practice, different types of shareholder agreements are often lumped together without correct distinctions, which may be harmful to corporate governance, nor does it meet the company's needs. From the perspective of comparative law, the development of shareholders' agreements in the United States over the past century has resulted in the accumulation of numerous representative cases, and continue to influence them to this day, forming a comprehensive statutory regulation. Regarding close company regulation which is deeply related to shareholder control agreements, there are two main legislative models: the unified model and the exclusive model. While the exclusive model has overcome the difficulty of defining "close", it has not attracted the new establishment of close companies as expected. Instead, it has raised further legal issues, including overly complex regulation, unclear effectiveness of non-statutory close corporations’ shareholder agreements, and the abuse of majoritarianism. In contrast, the remedial legislation adopted by the unified model better aligns with the needs of close corporations and avoids oppression on the rights of minority shareholders. Furthermore, with regard to share transfer restrictions, it requires certain formalities in United States, making transfer restrictions effective against third parties. This approach enhances the practicality of share transfer restrictions. At the same time, the requirement of “reasonableness” and standards developed through case law balance the conflict between the freedom of share transfer and the closed nature of corporations. Apart from United Stated, shareholders' agreements under Japanese law also developed very early, and its context is similar to that in our country. However, after the transition from the old Commercial Code to the Companies Act, the Companies Act merged the limited liability company into the corporation, providing a more flexible framework to accommodate the needs of close corporation shareholders. This could be a valuable reference for our country's future revisions of Company Act. Additionally, Companies Act in Japan stipulates that articles of incorporation can include share transfer restrictions and grants restricted shareholders the right to request a buyout. These provisions not only maintain the closed nature of the corporation but also guarantee the freedom of share transfer. Based on a comparative analysis of foreign laws and an examination of our country's regulations and judicial practice, this paper puts forth three main arguments: Firstly, regarding shareholder control agreements, it is proposed to consider the legislative system of the unified model. This would require written agreements as requirements and, in principle, unanimous consent from all shareholders. Exceptions can be made when parties can prove that there is no oppression of minority shareholders or parties are shareholders who own substantially all of the stock of the corporation. This approach aims to provide flexible corporate structures for all close corporations without compromising corporate governance. Secondly, Company Act should allow all non-publicly issued corporations to set share transfer restrictions in their articles of incorporation based on their individual needs. Additionally, a buyout system should be introduced to ensure the freedom of share transfer. Reasonable requirements should also be implemented to limit the risk of abuse of power by the company. Finally, in future regulations for share transfer restriction agreements, it is proposed to introduce a notice system similar to that in the United Stated so that the agreements can be effective against third parties. This will not only ensure the security of transaction but also enhance the effectiveness of share transfer restrictions. However, the requirement of reasonableness must also be adopted to prevent oppression by majority shareholders. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91720 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202304536 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-1.pdf | 2.51 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。