論閉鎖性股份有限公司控制股東壓迫少數股東行為之防免與救濟

Protecting Minority Shareholder from Oppressive Conducts by ex ante Contracts and ex post Litigations in Closely Held Corporations

陳文心(Wen-Shing Chen)

指導教授 ： 林仁光

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700595

摘要

少數股東權益保障在公司法之重要性舉足輕重，然觀我國閉鎖性股份有限公司之法規，未就少數股東受控制股東壓迫時如何因應有所著墨，本論文旨在探討當對外無流通市場、股份轉讓受限、經營與所有高度結合之具閉鎖性質的公司中，當控制股東以其對公司的控制力作出對少數股東權益有所侵害或甚至破壞少數股東對公司的期待的決策時，少數股東應如何確保其權益等問題。
本論文首先由壓迫行為的概念進行介紹，即壓迫行為之定義、態樣及認定方式等概念，接著探討針對壓迫行為是否有事前預防方法，即事先以契約約定或於章程訂定確保其權益等相關內容，詳言之，全體股東書面協議應如何約定、章程應如何訂定，以及兩者間應如何互動等均為探討範疇；進而，如壓迫行為發生後，少數股東應如何提起救濟，即現有的代位訴訟制度無法使少數股東獲得真正的救濟，故應允許少數股東以受壓迫為由直接起訴請求救濟，則法院應如何認定是否受壓迫、以及在變化多端的壓迫行為態樣中，應如何選擇多元且符合衡平之救濟內容皆為探討的範疇。
本文主要藉比較法研究方式，由英國及美國兩國之公司法制、實務發展趨勢及學說見解，與我國於2015年新增之閉鎖性股份公司專章相加對照，藉以推估我國閉鎖性股份公司相關法規在適用上可能遭遇的問題，並提出相關可行之建議。

關鍵字

閉鎖性股份有限公司 ； 少數股東 ； 控制股東 ； 壓迫行為 ； 不公平壓迫 ； 公平價格 ； 股東書面協議

並列摘要

Though protection of minority shareholder’s interest plays a decisive role in company laws, while controlling shareholders behave oppressive through minority shareholders in close corporations, the minority’s protection has not been regulated in Taiwan Company Act.
The thesis aimed at the company which characterized with minority shareholders lack of exit rights, share transfer right are restricted, how can minority ensure their rights when controlling shareholders suppressing minority’s interest and even defeating minority’s reasonable expectation excluding minority investor from company’s financial and participatory benefits.
The first thing is define oppression, including its pattern and way of cognition, and then discuss whether there is any ex ante prevention measures for oppressive conduct, in other words, how can minority protect themselves from shareholder agreement and corporate charter and also the interrelationship between them. If, unfortunately, oppression has occurred, how should minority shareholders get relief? Shareholder derivative actions cannot resolve the dissension in the company, therefore, the minority whose benefit has been oppressed could bring the suit directly is also being discussed. After that, the problems should be solved are: how to define “oppression” and how to select an appropriate equitable remedy while confronting changeable oppressive conducts.
This thesis comparing the regulations and business practice in Taiwan with United States and United Kingdom, and come to a conclusion about the difficulties applying Taiwan Company Act while oppression has occurred. Also, the thesis give some suggestions on relevant feasible recommendation and hope to resolve shareholder oppression issue in close corporation law in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

closely held corporations ； close corporations ； private companies ； minority shareholders ； oppression ； shareholder oppression ； controlling shareholders ； unfair prejudice ； fair price ； shareholder agreements

參考文獻

王文宇（2002），〈表決權契約與表決權信託〉，《法令月刊》，第53卷2期，起訖頁37-50。

王志誠，（2006），〈閉鎖性公司少數股東之保護〉，《政大法學評論》，第89期，起訖頁237-239。

林仁光（2016），〈2015年公司法與證券交易法發展回顧〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第45卷，起訖頁1699。

郭大維（2014）〈論股東表決權拘束契約之效力評最高法院九十六年度台上字第一三四號民事判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第231期，起訖頁47-58。

陳佳妤（2016），《股份有限公司章程研究與模範章程建構》，國立臺灣大學法律學系碩士論文。