论文部分内容阅读
自“公司有重大违法行为”作为暂停、终止上市条件写入1994年颁行的《公司法》迄今的19年间,因违法行为情节严重、性质恶劣而遭到有权机关严厉查处的上市公司并非寥寥。此间,暂停、终止上市的决定权从国务院证券监督管理机构逐步移交至证券交易所,但无论是证监会还是交易所均从未因公司存在重大违法行为而作出过暂停或终止其股票上市的决定,“重大违法行为”条款在一定程度上成为了“纸面法律”。文章结合具体案例,从退市制度价值理念、立法背景、语言及配套衔接等方面探究该条款被“束之高阁”的原因,并横向比较香港证券市场的退市立法,在引发思考的同时提出完善之浅见。
Since the “company has a major breach of law” as a suspension, termination of the listing conditions into the “Company Law” promulgated in 1994 so far for 19 years, due to serious violations of the nature and nature of the authorities have been severely punished the market The company is not very few. Here, the decision-making power to suspend or terminate the listing was gradually transferred from the securities regulatory authority under the State Council to the stock exchange, but neither the CSRC nor the exchange has made the decision of suspending or terminating the listing of its shares due to the existence of a material unlawful act by the company , “Major violations ” clause to a certain extent, became “paper law ”. This article explores the reasons for this clause being “shelved” from the perspectives of delisting system value concept, legislative background, language and supporting convergence, and horizontally compares the delisting legislation of Hong Kong securities market to bring forward thinking while putting forward Humble opinion.