企業併購股份收買請求權之公平價格認定－以併購過程妥適性為中心

我國企業併購法自2002年訂定後歷經兩次修正，按2015年7月8日修正後現行企業併購法第12條規定，不同意公司進行併購之股東得請求公司按當時公平價格收買其持股，此權利救濟機會學說稱為「異議股東股份收買請求權」。而公司與股東間若未能就股份收買價格達成協議，則公司應為聲請人，以未達成協議股東為相對人向法院聲請裁定股份價格，並由公司支付聲請程序及鑑定人費用。相較修法前規定，修法後減輕異議股東程序及費用負擔，預料將提升股份收買請求權之運用而增加裁定實務數量。於司法院釋字第770號解釋，解釋文認為立法者對於被現金逐出公司之異議股東，就股份對價公平性之確保應設立有效權利救濟機制，方能符合憲法第15條保障人民財產權之意旨。除被現金逐出之股東，其餘符合法定要件之異議股東亦有行使請求公司收買股份之權利，惟現行企業併購法第12條並未就股份公平價格認定方式有明確規範，以致我國股份收買請求權裁定實務見解紛亂不齊。法院裁定機制若欲發揮該號解釋所謂有效權利救濟機制之功能效用，關鍵應在認定股份公平價格方式須於企業併購法立法目的之「利於企業進行併購」，與股份收買請求權功能目的之「保障異議股東權益」間取得平衡，不得厚此薄彼，更不應缺乏論證即逕以股票市場價格或併購案收購價格作為股份公平價格。從而，本文擬搜尋及整理我國股份收買請求權公開裁定，分析實務認定股份公平價格作法，於此，美國德拉瓦州已累積豐富實務見解，且其為因應2011年左右興起之收買套利風潮產生的實務見解改變及相關法律修正，可作為我國現行法及實務之借鏡。德拉瓦州最高法院於近期 Dell 案及 DFC 案建立以併購過程妥適性為中心的認定股份公平價格方式，於我國應如何適用方能使實務裁定價格更接近公正、公允與公平，即本文探討之核心。於本文第五章，將逐列我國實務認定股份公平價格諸多疑義進行檢討，並提出本文見解，期能為股份收買請求權制度之完善盡一己之力，以達成該制度設計之功能目的。

關鍵字

企業併購；股份收買請求權；司法院釋字第770號解釋；公平價格；併購過程；收買套利；收購價格；市場價格；獨立專家；受託義務

並列摘要

Taiwan Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act (“the Act”) has amended twice since it was promulgated. According to Article 12 of the Act amended in 2015, the shareholder who has expressed objection to the merger and acquisitions (“M&A”) by a company may have appraisal right to request the company to buy back the shares at the then fair price. The company shall apply to the court for a ruling on the fair price against all the dissenting shareholders, in case no agreement about the price of buying back is reached. The company shall also bear the expenses of the application procedure and the compensation for the inspector. With the amendment to the Act, it is expected to increase incentives to assert appraisal right and rise appraisal litigation. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees people’s property rights. According to J.Y. Interpretation No.770, the Legislature shall provide all frozen-out shareholders a timely and effective remedy to get fair value of their shares, or it may violate the people’s property right protected by the Constitution. Appraisal right shall be available to the dissenting shareholder applicable in the situation where the prerequisites are satisfied. However, there is no clear and specific prescription of determining fair value in appraisal litigation under Article 12 of the Act. The price ruling mechanism must strike a balance between the purpose of enacting the Act to “facilitate M&A by a business” and the function of appraisal right to “protect dissenting shareholders”. If the court concludes stock market price or deal price as fair value without scrutinizing of the sale process, it may fail to achieve the essence of J.Y. Interpretation No.770. This thesis focus on how the court determines the fair value of shares by collecting and analyzing the opinion of Taiwan appraisal cases. The evolution of Delaware appraisal litigation and the amendment of Section 262 of Delaware General Corporation Law could be a foundation to follow. In Dell and DFC, the Delaware Supreme Court relied on deal price to measure fair value when the sale process was reasonable. The main issue is how to apply Delaware statute and case law to establish fair value in an appraisal proceeding and design appraisal right under Taiwan law. The thesis will analyze the appraisal litigation issues of determining fair value of shares at Chapter 5, and expect to propose suggestions to make the Court ruling and the Act more reasonable.

並列關鍵字

M&A ； Appraisal Right ； J.Y. Interpretation No.770 ； Fair Value ； Process ； Appraisal Arbitrage ； Deal Price ； Market Price ； Independent Expert ； Fiduciary Duty