股東行動主義與股東會召集、決議機制之變革—與日本法之比較為中心

Shareholder Activism and The Reform of The Assembling and Resolution Procedure of Shareholders' Meeting—A Comparative Analysis With The Japanese Law

賴盈孜(Ying-Tzu Lai)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201602531

摘要

我國自2005年增訂電子投票制度後，一開始乏人問津，唯經主管機關強力推廣，利用率已顯著提升。電子投票之特性使股東可在家投票，免除參加股東會的舟車勞頓，並可由本人直接投票，無需另行委託他人代理，加之電子文件瞬時送達之特性，可大幅延長股東審議議案之時間。
唯我國未引進電子股東會，電子投票仍停留在事前投票制度，無法因應現場動動議之審議，因此制度上應限縮現場動議之提出，以保障電子投票股東免於遭受突襲。但動議有將召集事由之相關事項利用股東會之機會一併處理之功能，過度限制恐有害會議效率。本文試圖借鏡日本法上的議題提案權、議案提案權之切割方式，限制臨時動議之提出，以強化股東會議案之明確性與安定性。
又，電子投票作為表決權行使方法之一，則當電子投票與其他表決權行使方法發生衝突時，應以何者為準？我國法之規定有過度重視股務作業便利，而犧牲股東表決權利之嫌，本文擬參考日本法之規範，嘗試提出本文之見解。
最後，電子投票股東無法參與股東會現場的審議，故其對於議案之投票判斷，仰賴於公司於會前揭露之資訊，若會前資訊揭露可結合電子網路科技，即可提前股東開始審議議案之時間。另一方面，電子文件之大量利用，可能排擠部分不具受領電子文件之設備或技能之股東知情之權益，則制度上如何調整，以兼顧資訊傳遞之效率與數位落差股東之權益？本文以日本的「股東會程序之電子化促進研究會」研究報告中，日本觀察諸外國之電子提供制度後所統整出之制度設計重點為著眼點，檢視我國目前的議案之資訊揭露方式，望能提出對未來修法有用之建言。

關鍵字

股東行動主義 ； 電子投票 ； 通訊投票 ； 股東e票通 ； 通知與接觸制度

並列摘要

Ever since the introduction of electronic voting for shareholders’ meetings in Taiwanese law system, the adoption rate of e-voting had been low. However, after the ardent promotion of the authority, the adoption rate has increased significantly. Electronic voting has several advantages. It helps shareholders to vote at home, exempt them from the travel-worn and it also enable shareholders to vote themselves without resorting to a proxy agent. The promptness of the delivery of electronic documents will greatly extend the deliberation time over the proposals for shareholders as well.
Nevertheless, we did not introduce electronic shareholders’ meeting. The utilization of e-voting is limited to voting in advance and it cannot respond accordingly to the deliberation of extempore motions. Therefore, we should limit the submission of extempore motions to protect the e-voting shareholders from surprise attacks. Despite of what being said, extempore motions have the function to process the relevant issues to the meeting agendas. Thus, the over limitation of extempore motions will harm the efficiency of the meeting. This article reviews the delicate distinction in the scope of different proposals in Japanese law as reference in an attempt to establish a standard to limit the submission of extempore motions and thus strengthen the clarity and the stability of the shareholders’ meeting motions.
Furthermore, the electronic voting being one of the different ways to exercise voting rights, which one should prevail when there is inconsistency between electronic voting and other means? The stipulations in our law system overemphasizes the conveniences for stock operation at the cost of the exercise of the shareholders’ rights to vote. This article tries to make use of the Japanese law to propose a new point of view.
Finally, shareholders who utilize electronic voting cannot take part in the deliberation during the shareholders’ meeting. Therefore, their judgments on the proposals rely heavily on the information the company revealed before the meeting. If the revelation of the information could be digitalized on the Internet, we may greatly shift the commencement of the shareholders’ deliberation over the proposals to an earlier stage. Nonetheless, the mass utilization of digitalized documents may push aside those shareholders who are not equipped with the apparatus to receive the digitalized information and deprive their rights to know. What should be done to strike a balance between the efficiency of the transmission of information and the protection of the shareholders’ rights who suffer from the digital disparity? This article draws lessons from the Japanese research: Study Group on Promoting Electronification of Processes for Shareholder Meetings to examine the present practice of the disclosure of the information of the proposals and to propose a few remarks to future amendments.

並列關鍵字

shareholders’ activism ； electronic voting ； e-voting ； stockvote ； Notice&Access

參考文獻

1.林國全、劉連煜，股東會書面投票制度與證券集中保管，元照，初版，1999年12月。

1.王志誠，中日公開公司內部組織法制之比較分析，中正法學集刊，15期，2004年4月。

2.王志誠，股東之一般提案權、特別提案權及臨時動議—最高法院九十六年度台上字第二０００號判決之評釋，月旦法學雜誌，185期，2010年10月。

4.朱德芳，公司治理與基金治理—兼論投信事業行使證券投資信託基金所持股票股東權之相關規範，臺北大學法學論叢，69期，2009年3月。

11.陳彥良，公司組織種類與股東會議程資訊之揭露—評最高法院九十八年台上字第九二三號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，3期，2010年6月。