论文部分内容阅读
在我国,股东提起强制解散之诉,需满足“公司经营管理发生严重困难”之要件,但实务中对该要件应如何解释存在争议。最高人民法院指导案例8号——林案采取“行为主义”的方法,将“经营管理困难”解释为经营管理过程中的组织性或者治理性障碍,从而认可法院有权解散处于“盈利状态”的“好公司”——进而引发“好公司”为什么要判决解散的问题。实际上,中国法院的此种裁判逻辑与美国法院的做法接近。司法解散制度旨在终结存在“人合性障碍”的股东关系,司法解散不是目的,而是股东寻求退出公司的手段。成文法赋予少数股东强制解散公司的权力,实质在于赋予其退出公司的谈判筹码。案例实践也表明,无论法院如何判决(公司解散或不解散),仍有存续价值的公司,都会通过买断等变通方式,继续存在。法院是否判决公司解散,与该公司是否居于盈利状态(是否属于“好公司”)没有关系,而与股东之间是否存在不可调和的“人合性障碍”有关。法院是否判决解散公司,不应以公司的盈利状况好坏为主要裁判标准,而应以股东之间的“人合性障碍”为考量基准。破产法与公司法中的有关“强制解散制度”最终形成一种互补的体系,分别重点解决“资合性欠缺”和“人合性欠缺”、“公共违法”的公司之解散。如果理解了司法强制解散制度的本质,则不必过分担心其对社会公众利益会产生实质性损害,而应当修改立法,使司法强制解散制度更加宽容,增加替代性救济方式,节省股东的退出成本。或者,更准确地说,“司法强制解散”可以被“司法强制退出”制度所取代——直接规定,经营管理发生严重困难的公司,少数股东可主张由公司或多数股东收购其股权,从而以公平价格退出“令其失望”的“好公司”。
In our country, shareholders should file compulsory dismissal complaint, which must meet the requirement of “serious difficulties in company operation and management”, but in practice there is controversy over how to interpret this requirement. Supreme People’s Court Guiding Case No.8 - Lin Case adopts the method of “behaviorism” to interpret “management difficulties” as an organizational or governing obstacle in the course of operation and management, so as to recognize the court’s right to dissolve “Good company ” of “profit status ” - and then lead to “good company ” why the sentence of dissolution. In fact, the logic of such judgments in Chinese courts is close to that of U.S. courts. The judicial dissolution system aims to end the shareholder relationship with “human nature obstacle”. Judicial dissolution is not an end but a means by which shareholders seek to withdraw from the company. Statutory law to give minority shareholders the power to dissolve the company, in essence, give it the bargaining chip to exit the company. The case practice also shows that no matter how the court ruling (the dissolution or non-dissolution of the company), there are still value-added companies, will continue to exist through alternative ways of buying. Whether the court ruled that the dissolution of a company is related to whether the company is profitable (whether it is a “good company” or not) and whether there is an irreconcilable “personality disorder” among shareholders. Whether the court ruled that the company should be dissolved should not be based on the company’s profitability as the main criterion, but should be based on the “human nature obstacle” among the shareholders. The Bankruptcy Law and the Company Law “Forced Dissolution System” finally formed a complementary system, which focused on solving the problems of “lack of comparability” and “lack of unity” and “public infringement” respectively The dissolution of the company. If we understand the nature of the system of mandatory dissolution of justice, we should not have to worry too much about the material damage to the public interest. We should amend the legislation to make the system of judicial dissolution more tolerant, increase the alternative relief and save the exit costs of the shareholders. Or, to be more precise, “judicial dissolution” can be replaced by “judicial withdrawal” system. It is directly stipulated that a company that poses serious difficulties in operation and management may claim to have its company or majority shareholders acquire it Equity, and thus exit the “good company” that “disappoints” it at a fair price.