威秀公司股東協議爭議案探討－以表決權拘束契約為中心

Abstract

所謂「表決權拘束契約」係股東間針對有權表決之一定事項，就表決權之行使方式，包含限制其表決權之行使或不行使進行約定，來干涉彼此間對於表決權之行使，使各簽訂契約之股東一致性行使表決權。早期我國公司法並未明文規範股東表決權拘束契約，惟實務上最高法院對於表決權拘束契約之效力向來持否定見解。 隨著時代的不同，表決權拘束契約也逐步發展成為近代公司經營管理討論中，不可缺少的一部分，表決權拘束契約已經逐漸被普遍地應用到各種交易之中，也提供給股東有了不同形式上之表決權行使。立法者也在其後的法律的修正，逐漸擴大表決權拘束契約所能適用之範圍，使表決權拘束契約在立法與實務上，透過企業併購法第10條、公司法第356條之9與公司法第175條之1等法規上，獲得一定程度的承認與限制。 然而，表決權拘束契約之運用卻也導致諸多弊端之發生，不僅使公司內部之控制權結構更趨於複雜而不易發現公司受益所有人外，控制股東更能藉此在無須移轉股份之前提下行使表決權而無需承擔任何經濟風險，難以達成穩定公司決策之政策目標，進而損害公司整體利益與小股東之權益。因此，實有必要釐清表決權拘束契約之應用及其優缺點，藉此探討出適當之相關規範。 對此，本文除了參考我國相關立法例與其發展外，更加引用我國近幾年來重要性表決權拘束契約代表案例，包括彰銀案、中廣案、華納威秀案重要三大案件。本文詳細梳理了該三案之不同審級之判決結果，與如何審酌表決權拘束契約之事實內容，來探討牽涉到表決權拘束契約所產生的經營權爭議，以及表決權拘束契約搭配其他股東與經營權間攻防措施時所產生之正當性問題。 此外，本文透過文獻探討與案例分析法之研究方法過程，探討表決權拘束契約效力之重要性，釐清我國當今表決權拘束契約於公司營運實務、經營權爭奪之實際狀況，以及法院判決審酌攸關表決權拘束契約的事實與適用情形來了解表決權拘束契約在公司治理過程中的應用價值與注意事項。同時，歸納出改善該缺陷之方法，以提供未來後續配套措施之施行方向，使表決權拘束契約之相關制度運行得在我國公司法制中發揮最大之效益。

A “Voting Agreement” is an agreement between shareholders on the manner of exercising voting rights in respect of certain matters including agreements to either restrict or abstain from exercising such rights so that the shareholders who have signed the contract exercise their voting rights in a consistent manner. In the past, this was not explicitly stipulated in the Taiwan’s Company Act. However, the court of the third instance had always held a negative attitude toward its legal validity. With the passage of time, voting agreements have gradually evolved into an indispensable part of modern corporate management discussions. They not only have been widely applied in various transactions, but they have also provided shareholders with different alternatives to exercise their voting rights. Subsequent amendments by the legislator have gradually expanded the scope of application of voting agreements. They are now recognized and restricted to a certain extent through practice and legislations such as Article 10 of the Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act, Article 356-9 and Article 175-1of the Company Act. However, the use of voting agreements has also led to many drawbacks. Not only does it make the internal control structure of the company more complex and difficult to discover the beneficial owners of the company, but the controlling shareholder can also exercise voting rights without transferring shares and avoiding any economic risks. This makes it difficult to achieve the policy goal of stabilizing corporate decision-making, thereby harming the overall interests of the company and the interests of minority shareholders. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the application and advantages and disadvantages of voting agreements so as to find the appropriate regulations. In this regard, in addition to looking into the relevant legislation and its development in Taiwan, this paper analyzes three major cases that concerns the voting agreement, namely the Chang Hwa Bank, China Broadcasting Corporation, and Vieshow Cinemas case. This paper thoroughly examines the factual content of each case across different instances, and how the court determined the legality of the voting agreements to discuss the management disputes that arises from the agreements, as well as the legitimacy issues when they are used alongside corporate defense mechanisms among shareholders. Furthermore, this paper adopts literature review and case analysis methods to discuss the significance of the legal validity of voting agreements, understand the usage of such agreements in corporate operations and management disputes, as well as how Taiwanese courts interpret and apply them so as to identify their value in corporate governance and key considerations in their application. Finally, this paper proposes methods to resolve the current shortcomings, offering policy recommendations that may maximize the effectiveness of voting agreements within Taiwan’s corporate legal framework.