摘要
《公司法》第142条规定了公司回购股权的几种特殊情况,这一规定现已成为投资者与目标公司对赌时实际履行的一道鸿沟。从"海富案"到"华工案",法院对于投资人直接与公司对赌的裁判思路一直在变化。2019年11月8日,最高法发布了《关于印发〈全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要〉的通知》(以下简称"《九民纪要》")统一了裁判思路,肯定了投资方与目标公司对赌的"合同有效性"。但实施相关条款还要考虑"实际可履行性"。《九民纪要》颁布后,从最高院到地方法院均贯彻落实这一裁判思路,在肯定对赌条款"有效性"的同时,因投资目标公司未召开股东会作出减资决议,不满足《公司法》规定减资的法定条件,不具备"履行性",而驳回投资人请求公司回购股权的诉请。这无疑使得投资人与投资目标公司对赌成为空中楼阁。然而,投资方和投资标的公司作为商事主体在签订合同时已达成意思自治,在目标公司未达成对赌约定时却可以通过不配合召开股东会等方式而阻止回购义务履行,有违民法最基本的诚实信用原则。
Article 142 of the Company Law stipulates several special circumstances in which a company may repurchase its equity. Such stipulations have set a barrier for the enforcement of bet-on agreements concluded between the investor and the invested company. From the "Haifu case" to the "Huagong case", courts changed their judgments on the bet-on agreements. On November 8, 2019, the Supreme Court issued the Notice on the Issuance of "the Minutes of the National Court Work Conference for Civil and Commercial Trials"(hereinafter referred to as "Minutes"), unifying the judgment of courts and affirming the validity while stating that "the enforcement of the relevant provisions should take ’practical fulfilment’ into account". After this promulgation, the Supreme Court and the local courts have implemented the judgment idea. While affirming the validity of the agreement terms, courts have rejected the investor’s appeal for the invested company’s equity repurchase, which must be approved by a resolution made at the shareholders’ meeting. If the invested company does not hold such a meeting, relevant legal conditions stipulated in the Company Law for equity reduction are not met. As a result, the enforcement of the agreement is impracticable. The courts’ rejection undoubtedly turns the bet-on agreement into a mirage. However, since these two commercial subjects, the investor and the invested company, have signed the agreement, they have agreed upon the autonomy of will. Once the bet-on agreement conditions are not satisfied, the invested company may prevent the equity repurchase by means of not convening a shareholders’ meeting. Such a practice breaches the basic principle of good faith in the civil law.
作者
何琛
HE Chen(School of Law,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042)
出处
《宁波开放大学学报》
2021年第4期80-84,共5页
Journal of Ningbo Open University
关键词
对赌协议
股权回购
公司资本维持
Bet-on Agreement
Equity Repurchase
Corporate Capital Maintenance
