论文部分内容阅读
本文叙述的是一个近年发生在英国的上市公司管理层与主要股东争夺控制权的案例。一家注册于英国的伦敦证券交易所上市公司,拟发行股份融资,屡遭一名主要股东反对而搁浅,管理层遂准备在年度股东大会上推出多个议案,削弱这名主要股东的影响力。该主要股东随即提议召开临时股东大会,罢免公司管理层核心成员,推荐了3位接任董事,并在《金融时报》刊登广告吁请其他股东支持。公司董事会依据《2006年公司法》与《公司章程》规定,向该主要股东及其关联方发出通知,要求其披露持股权益的细节,并以有合理理由相信该主要股东与另一名主要股东在回复中隐瞒一致行动关系为由,发出股权限制通告,限制这两名主要股东的投票权与股份转让权。两名主要股东以权益披露通知无效,董事会会议得出有合理理由相信回复披露不实结论的程序有瑕疵、实体依据不足,施加股权限制非出于正当目的等理由,诉请法院判决股权限制无效,并通过紧急申请法院发布临时救济令,如期参加了年度股东大会投票。原被告均聘请了御用大律师(QC)。2013年8月,英格兰与威尔士高等法院(商事法庭)[England and Walles High Court(Chancery Division)]一审,独任法官判决原告胜诉;~([1])2014年5月,英格兰与威尔士上诉法院(民事庭)[England and Wales Court of Appeal(Civil Division)]二审,3名法官以多数改判被告胜诉;~([2])2015年12月,联合王国最高法院(United Kingdom Supreme Court)终审,5名法官基本上一致又改判原告胜诉。~([3])该案折射出,英联邦国家的公众公司控制权争夺与纠纷处理,有别于我们比较熟悉的美国做法。虽然我国公司法上没有英国那样的公众公司权益披露与股权限制机制,但是,鉴于该案涉及的事实景况与法律争点近年来在我国证券市场上多有映像,由此引致的情理与法理喧嚣不绝于耳,该案原被告双方举陈攻防、法官辨思权衡的理念与细节,对我们认识与处理公众公司控制权纠纷以及董事权力的行使有较大的参考价值,本文不吝繁冗,大体上原汁原味地介绍了这一乍看不那么醒目但内涵丰富的案例。
This article describes a case of management of listed companies in Britain competing for control with major shareholders in recent years. A listed London Stock Exchange company registered in the United Kingdom, the proposed issuance of shares financing, repeatedly opposed by a major shareholder and ran aground, management is prepared to introduce a number of annual shareholders meeting to weaken the influence of this major shareholder. The major shareholder then proposed to convene an extraordinary general meeting to remove the core members of the management of the company, recommended three succeeding directors and advertised in the Financial Times calling on other shareholders to support it. In accordance with the Company Law 2006 and the Articles of Association of the Company, the Board of Directors of the Company issued a notice to the substantial shareholder and its affiliates requiring them to disclose the particulars of the shareholding interests and to believe that the substantial shareholder is in good faith with another major In the reply, the shareholders concealed the concerted action, issued a notice of restriction of shareholding and restricted the voting rights and share transfer rights of the two major shareholders. Two major shareholders of the notice of the rights and interests of the invalid, the board meeting concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reply to the disclosure of false conclusions of the program has flaws, the entity based on inadequate, the application of equity restrictions for non-legitimate purposes, and other reasons, the court ruled that equity restrictions invalid , And issued an interim relief order through an urgent application to the court and attended the annual general meeting as scheduled. The original defendants hired Queen’s Counsel (QC). In August 2013, at the first instance of England and Walles High Court (Chancery Division), the sole judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff; ~ ([1]) In May 2014, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) [England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division]] second instance, the three judges won the majority of the defendant; ~ ([2]) In December 2015, the United Kingdom Supreme Court finalized, The five judges were basically the same and sentenced the plaintiffs to victory. ~ ([3]) This case reflects the fact that the control and dispute resolution of public companies in Commonwealth countries is different from the familiar American practice. Although there is no such mechanism in our company law as public company rights disclosure and equity restriction in the United Kingdom, the fact and legal disputes involved in this case have many images on the stock market in our country in recent years. , The original case the defendants both offensive and defensive, the judge the concept of balance of ideas and details of our understanding and handling of disputes over the control of public companies and the exercise of the powers of directors have a greater reference value, this article generous, largely authentic Introduced this case at first glance is not so eye-catching but rich in content.