特別股既具有表彰公司股東權利而有股份之性質,但某些特殊的特別股其性質又偏向於負債,使其在財務報表上產生模糊地帶。在財務會計研究發展基金會第三十六號公報發佈後,顛覆過去以法律形式區別公司所發行之金融工具在財務報表上的類型,而改以經濟實質作為劃分之依據,此舉對企業之財務規劃與財務報表造成一定程度的衝擊。本文主要擬就此探討第三十六號公報所造成或可能造成之影響。 又特別股在台灣的證券市場上,發行量雖不大,但觀諸近幾年許多企業發現到,利用權利義務條件能由公司自行設定的特別股,既可達到充實資本,又可達成企業合併或籌募重大資金之目的,實乃一舉數得之好方法,故我們可以合理期待將來會有更多公司發行特別股。然而特別股股東雖多屬於享有優先權之優先股股東,若再給予其權利保護措施,相對於普通股股東而言,實有過於偏袒之嫌,但特別股股東是否必定因其取得某些優先權,而必須在其他權利方面退讓呢?若遇到公司普通股股東或管理階層侵害特別股股東之權利時,其得否及能夠提出救濟。本文針對此類情形發生時,特別股股東權利之保護,做進一步之探討,以期作為將來實務發生類似案例之參考。
Preferred stocks represent the ownership of the company as stocks, but they also have the character of bonds under some circumstances. That may bring out some difficulties in the presentation of preferred stocks on financial statement. The ROC Accounting Research and Development Foundation announced Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 36, “Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation” in 2005, which provides preferred stocks should be classified as either a financial liability or an equity instrument according to the substance of the contract, not its legal form. The statement makes some impact on financial plans and statements of a company. This article will study the effects of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 36. Furthermore, we can expect that there will be more and more companies using preferred stocks to reach companies consolidation or financing. However, the balance of the rights between common stocks’ holders and preferred stocks’ holders is very important. Is it consequential that preferred stocks’ holders should give up some shareholders’ rights to get some priorities? Can they bring charges against other common stocks’ holders or management of the company breach their rights? This article makes a study of protection of the rights of preferred stocks’ holders under those circumstances.