2016年公司法與證券交易法發展回顧

Developments in the Law in 2016: Corporate Law and Securities and Exchange Act

邵慶平(Ching-Ping Shao)

《臺大法學論叢》 46卷S期 (2017/11) Pp. 1531-1560

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2017.46.SP.11

摘要

2016年公司法與證券交易法領域的發展，讓吾人對於法律修正之重要性有更多的反省與思考。在2016年11月，證券交易法第28條之4及第43條之1均三讀修正通過。第28條之4係放寬公開發行公司對於無擔保公司債之發行總額上限。然值得注意的是，本條的修正幾未引起任何爭議，也未被預期對於公司債的發行市場會產生重大影響。此外，鑑於公開收購樂陞股份案所引發之災難，第43條之1第2項的修正要求公開收購人應就其資金來源提供確認或證明文件。然而，第43條之1第4項本已授權金融監督管理委員會訂定公開收購辦法，金管會修訂此一辦法即可達到上述之目的，且在樂陞案發生後不久，金管會即著手相關修正。就此觀之，證券交易法的修正似無必要。就司法實務的發展而言，本文的回顧係針對臺北地方法院彰銀案之判決就表決權拘束契約的討論、部分高等法院就證券投資人及期貨交易人保護法中董事裁判解任規定的見解以及最高法院一則關於股東會決議有效與否之判決。此外，就2015年增訂之閉鎖性股份有限公司專節中之特別股規定以及內線交易重大消息之成立與明確此兩大議題的重要發表，本文也加以回顧討論。

關鍵字

無擔保公司債 ； 公開收購 ； 表決權拘束契約 ； 董事解任 ； 閉鎖性股份有限公司 ； 內線交易

並列摘要

In retrospect, legal developments in 2016 in corporate law and securities regulations offer a few glimpses of ＂insignificance＂ of many statutory changes. Amendments on two articles, Article 28-4 and Article 43-1, of the Securities and Exchange Act were passed in November 2016. Article 28-4 was revised to relax the limits on the amount of unsecured corporate bonds that a public company can issue. It should be noted that the way that this rule was changed had stirred little controversy and is not expected to have great impacts on the bond market. As a response to the debacle that a failed tender offer for shares of XPEC entertainment Inc. caused, a short paragraph was inserted into the Section 2 of Article 43-1 to require the tender offeror to provide documents on the sources of funding. However, the revision might not be needed to accomplish this purpose as the Section 4 of Article 43-1 offers an authorization rule that empowers the FSC to promulgate and amend the tender offer rules. Changes on the tender offer rules had long been underway without the legislative action since this case broke out. In terms of judicial developments, this paper highlights the ruling on the voting agreement in the high-profile Chang Hwa Bank case rendered by the Taipei District Court, a few judgments of various high courts on the controversial director dismissal rule in the Securities Investor and Futures Trader Protection Act and one Supreme Court judgement on the validity of shareholder meeting resolutions. In addition, this paper also reviews some notable publications on the preferred stock rule in the Close Corporation Section, which was added to the Company Act in 2015, and the eternal issue of whether the information is material and definite in insider trading cases.

並列關鍵字

unsecured corporate bond ； tender offer ； voting agreement ； director dismissal ； close corporation ； insider trading

參考文獻

公司法全盤修正修法委員會（2016），〈修法建議團隊〉，載於：http://www.scocar.org.tw/p df/file1.pdf。

中時電子報（10/24/2016），〈創新引擎 蔡英文拍板 全盤修正公司法〉，http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20161024005527-260410 （ 最後瀏覽日：07/01/2017）。

公司法全盤修正修法委員會（2016），〈公司法全盤修正修法建議〉，載於：http://www.scocar.org.tw/pdf/section0.pdf。

王文宇(2016)。公司法論。臺北:元照。

柯芳枝(2013)。公司法論。臺北:三民。