外部反向揭穿公司面紗原則之實體與程序——從台灣雷曼案出發

Outsider Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil With Regard to Substantial and Procedural Issues—on Lehman Brother Litigation in Taiwan

陳進哲(Chin-Che Chen)

指導教授 ： 曾宛如

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.02123

摘要

雷曼集團破產，導致全球投資人損失重大，揭示了金融全球化與自由化下，投資人保護與法律之適用的新挑戰。跨國金融集團藉由設立數間公司，將商品之發行、保證、銷售、仲介，分工合作，甚至完全切割或阻絕責任，我國法院與我國法律制度，必須能夠因應此一產業經營型態的改變，避免我國金融市場遭到濫用，成為跨國金融集團規範套利之受害人。雷曼破產風暴，挑戰著我國法律對於揭穿面紗原則、與反向揭穿面紗原則、以及對境外公司管轄權、與選法規則之詮釋。
在研究了美國法的文獻後，發現美國多數法院實務實際上係承認（recognized）外部反向揭穿面紗，僅是適用上如何操作有所分歧。故以比較法學方法論而言，繼受適用並無問題，重點在於應採取何一見解，使此原則之適用具備一致性，並兼顧利害關係人之保障。本文見解主張應採取綜合見解，考量不存在其他救濟手段後，即得援引反向揭穿。而考量對於無辜股東一定之保護，如現金退還請求權，而對於其他無辜之債權人，則依現行債法、強制執行法處理即可，無庸因而否定反向揭穿。而在我國新增公司法第154條2項已承認揭穿之衡平性法理及承認債權人保護亦為公司法重要目的，故引進上得基於傳統揭穿與反向揭穿之根本法理相同，故本條得類推適用，得援引本條而要求「股東之傀儡或分身」亦應負清償之責。綜上所述，反向揭穿應得於我國法院藉由解釋上類推適用。
再者，觀察美國法後，對於關係企業上揭穿面紗應有其特別之考量，有學者提出應以「單一企業體」理論取代揭穿面紗，惟本文認為此影響所及甚廣，故應更注重於關係企業上揭穿面紗之特性，考量是否子公司業務、財務上得獨立運作，交易均各自標明，而有直接干涉控制等情事，以提昇揭穿面紗之成功率即可預測性。
次者，揭穿面紗之影響所及，不僅止於實體面，程序面上亦已在美國法院中被廣泛運用，本文主要介紹了「審判權揭穿」，並主張於我國下得予以繼受，期拋磚引玉，揭開「揭穿面紗」廣泛的運用可能性。並進一步回頭檢討我國程序法目前所採之逆推知說，恐已無法妥適處理多變得商業現實，應考量兼採「修正之類推說」。
末者，蒐羅美國法對於揭穿面紗準據法適用之文獻後，觀察雷曼案判決，卻顯見法院完全未意識到揭穿面紗本身係一獨立之問題，反而將揭穿面紗之問題定性為「契約」或「侵權行為」，而依契約或侵權之選法規則處理，實已完全忽略「揭穿面紗」本身之聯繫因素與應有之選法規則，過於簡化之結果，不但使得「揭穿面紗」之選法規則完全被抹殺，甚至將導致適用「最重要牽連關係原則」。考量到準據法選擇亦有政策面上之影響，故本文認為此對於外資而言，將產生巨大之不確定性，故應依涉民法第1條以類推適用涉民法第26條，以定其準據法。
我國雷曼案系列法院判決，雖然論證上尚未意識到反向揭穿、與揭穿關係企業時之獨特性，選法規則上亦將之當作「侵權責任或契約」問題，但此判決仍有重大意義，蓋其為我國法中首次提出「外部反向揭穿面紗」之案例，本文乃期本文能對此一議題做出些許貢獻，引來更多之討論與研究，使得我國對跨國境外公司的管制與救濟請求之法制規範，能更臻完善。

關鍵字

外部反向揭穿公司面紗原則 ； 揭穿關係企業公司之面紗 ； 單一企業責任理論 ； 審判權揭穿 ； 揭穿面紗之選法規則 ； 雷曼兄弟

並列摘要

Abstract

Lehmen Brother, a multi-national conglomerate, went bankrupt. Investors worldwide who had held the Lehmen Brother minibonds bear severe loss. This reveals new challenges to the existing laws and regulations on the investors’ protection while global finance is becoming more vibrant, at the same time regulations on financial markets gradually deregulated. More often than not, multi-national financial conglomerates set up several subservient companies, divide up the entire procedure of a financial product business into different steps (issuing, quranteeing, selling, brokering…etc), and then assign different subservient companies with these task. As such, the conglomerates can effectively prevent their dominant company from any potential liability due to the shelter of limited liability. Responding to emerging conglomerates, laws and courts have been forced to deal with it. With a series of Lehmen Brother litigations in the Taipei District Court, these litigations brought about new challenges—like, outsider reverse piercing the corporate veil, the judicial jurisdiction on an offshore company, and the choice of law for piercing the corporate veil—to Taiwan legal regime.

After reviewing articles and summarizing the court decisions which dealt with outsider reverse piercing the veil in the U.S., this thesis concludes that, as a matter of fact, most of the aforementioned courts recognize the remedy of outsider reverse piercing the veil (hereinafter to “the Remedy”). Thereforem, in terms of a legal transplant, the Remedy can be transplanted. Accordingly, the concern shall be what approach we shall take so as to not only appropriately consider innocent stakeholers but also apply the Remedy more consistently. This thesis submits that we should adopt the “hybrid approach”: when there is no other effective alternatives, in regardless of the existence of innocent stakeholders, the Remedy shall be granted. As for any innocent shareholder, they can be provided with a claim of “capital exemption”. In terms of any innocent creditors, the existing civil law and enforcement law already provide enough protection. There is no need to refuse to grant the Remedy simply because there is an innocent creditor. As a matter of legal transplant methodology, the Section 2 of Article 154, Company Act 2015 (amended) recognizes the equitable principle underlying piercing the corporate veil and also recognizes that the protection to the creditor shall be as important as limited liability principle. The underlying principle of both traditional piercing the corporate veil and outsider reverse piercing the corporate veil is the same. The Section 2 of Article 154, Company Act 2015 (amended) could be substantive applied as a legal basis for the Remedy.

Also, after the examination of the U.S. law, there shall be unique considerations for piercing a subservient company’s veil of a corporate group. In this context, some argue that the piercing the corporate veil shall be replaced by enterprise liability theory. Yet, this approach might be even more drastical than piercing the veil. This thesis argues that the focus shall be, in this context, what approach we should take in order to enhance the effectiveness and predictability of piercing the veil. This thesis submits that we could consider the “factual combination” approach to better examine the relation between the subsidiary company and the parent company, such as whether or not they both are hopelessly intertwined, or they still maintain a certain separateness in terms of daily business operation and financial ability.

Moreover, the applicability of the theory “piercing the corporate veil” does not limit to substantial issues, but already comprehensively extends to procedural issues in the U.S. courts. This thesis introduces one of the most important procedural issue “jurisdictional veil piercing” and submits that this theory shall be transplanted into Taiwanese legal regime. Hopefully, this thesis will trigger a ripple effect so as to broden the applicability of the piercing the veil to procedural issue in Taiwan, as well as to provoke the reflection to prevailing theory—“Theory of Reverse Inference”—which is the dominant theory in Taiwan on whether a domestic court have a jurisdiction over an international civil litigation. This prevailing theory becomes less capable to deal with the fast-changing global commerce and economic. “Modified Theory of Reverse Inference” shall be considered.

Lastly, after examining relavent articles about the choice of law for piercing the veil, this thesis submits that we should take the legislative approach to enact an specific provision for the contention of choice of law for piercing the veil. Prior to the enactment, the court can rely on the Article 1 of “Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements”(hereinafter to the Act of the Choice of law) so as to substantive apply the Article 26 of the Act of the Choice of Law. This thesis submit that to some extent both the “general analysis of choice of laws” and “internal affairs doctrine” are inappropriate. Reviewing the Lehmen Brother litigation in Taiwan, the Taipei district court completely ignored the distinctiveness of the choice of law for piercing the veil. This kind of opinion will further leads to the application of the general analysis of “the most significant relation” theory, which, to some extent, will cause vaqueness and uncertainty to the choice of laws for piercing the veil. Concerning that the choice of law needs to take policy implication into account, this thesis submits that, for the choice of law for piercing the veil, the court can rely on the Article 1 of the Act of the Choice of law so as to substantive apply the Article 26 of the Act of the Choice of Law for the subject matter.

The decisions and reasonings of the courts in the series of Lehmen Bother litigations in Taiwan was not aware of (1) the difference between traditional piercing and outsider reverse piercing and (2) the unigueness of applying the piercing the veil to corporate groups, as well as (3) the distinctiveness of the choice of law for piercing the veil. Yet, these cases still have signifigance to the Taiwanese legal regime. They are the groundbreaking cases which bring the outsider reverse piercing to light. Hopefully, this thesis can make some contribution to the theory of outsider reverse piercing the veil and its relevant issues, can advance the research among academics on the issues, and, in the long term, and can be a contribution for a better regulation of Taiwan legal regime on multi-national offshore conglomerates.

Key Words: Outsider Reverse Piercing the Veil; Piercing the Veil of Corporate Groups; Enterprise Liability; Jurisdictional Veil Piercing; Choice of Laws; Lehmen Brother; Offshore Company; Multi-national Conglomerate.

並列關鍵字

Outsider Reverse Piercing the Coporate Veil ； Piercing the Veil on the Corporate Goups ； Enterprise Liasbility Theory ； Jurisdictional Piercing ； the Choice of Law for Piercing the Corporate Veil ； Lehmen Brother

參考文獻

最高法院101年台上字第187號民事判決。

最高法院99年台上字第1058號民事判決。

洪秀芬、朱德芳，〈關係企業債權人保護之發展趨勢：以揭穿公司面紗為核心〉，《臺大法學論叢》第43卷第3期，2014年9月。

Kurt A. Strasser, Piercing the Veil in Corporate Groups, 37 CONN. L. REV. (2005).

蔡華凱（2004），〈國際裁判管轄總論之研究─以財產關係訴訟為中心〉，國際裁判管轄總論之研究。《中正法學集刊》，第17期。