论文部分内容阅读
《中华人民共和国公司法》第一百零三条、第一百二十六条和第一百三十一条构成了公司发行类别股的障碍。同股同权本是股东平等的要求,但将原应内涵丰富的“股东平等”扁平化为“权利相同”的误读,使其在实践中错误地与限制类别股相联系。法定类别股的规定,限制了类别股充分发挥其根据公司和投资人实际需要重新组合股票所附各项权利的特性。然而,这些规定不能阻挡趋利而动的金融创新。实践中,股东间通过表决权委托(信托)、表决权限制协议、对赌协议、章程盈余优先分配条款、股票收益权转让等方式,可以在不直接违反证券法、公司法规定的情况下,实现表决权与现金流权不对称的特殊安排。
Article 103, Article 126 and Article 131 of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China constitute an obstacle to the issue of class shares by the Company. Equal rights of shareholders in the same share are the requirements of equality of shareholders, but misinterpretation of “shareholder equality”, which is supposed to be rich in meaning to “equal rights”, should be linked in practice to the restricted shares . The requirement of statutory class shares restricts the class unit from fully exploiting the characteristics of the rights it reorganizes in the shares according to the actual needs of the company and the investor. However, these provisions can not stop the profit-driven financial innovation. In practice, the voting rights of shareholders can be realized without directly violating the provisions of the Securities Law and the Company Law by means of voting rights trusts, voting restriction agreements, provisions on the preferential distribution of gambling agreements, articles of incorporation, and the transfer of stock rights. Special arrangement with asymmetric cash flow rights.