由比較法之觀點論我國現行公司重整之規定

Comparative Study of the Current Corporate Reorganization under the R. O. C. Corporate Law

林群弼(Chin-Bi Lin)

《臺大法學論叢》 34卷1期 (2005/01) Pp. 255-347

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2005.34.01.05

摘要

本文旨在透過比較法之研究，指出我國現行公司重整立法之缺失，並於最後提出建言，盼能藉此建言，防堵公司重整制度之濫用，提昇公司重整實施之績效。文中分別就「英國之公司整理制度」、「美國之公司重整制度」、「日本之公司整理制度及公司重整制度」、「我國之公司重整」加以探討，其中於「重整法令之重點及探討」部分，再以比較研究之方法，分別就「重整制度立法例」、「公司重整之對象、原因」、「就檢查人之選任」、「利害關係人之定義」、「重整監督人之選任」、「就重整人之選派而言」、「關係人會議之次數及任務」、「重整債權」、「就關係人會議之出席」、「非誠信取得重整債權及股份者行使表決權之禁止」、「重整計劃之提出人」、「重整計劃之執行期限」、「公司重整之管轄」、「關係人會議可決重整計劃之期間」、「法院之設立專庭」、「金融機構之配合融資」、「以債作股之准許」加以考察，祈能對於公司車整制度之缺失及發展方向，有所理解。
文中論及目前有公司重整立法之國家，除我國之外，僅美國及日本二國而已，加上我國實施公司重整制度之後，績效不彰，因此國內某收學者主張，應廢除公司重整之制度。本文以爲，公司重整制度本身具有維護社會安定、促進經濟發展之公益上目的，不宜輕言廢棄。現行公司重整制度所以績效不彰，多因非制度本身之人爲因素所造成。而此等人爲因素，可分爲法令上之原因及非法令上之原因。非法令之人爲因素，非本文之討論重點，本文僅就法令上之人爲因素，加以論述。在「結論」中，分別就「現有法規應加修正之部分」、「現無規定而應增加規定之部分」，提出將來修法之建言。由此論述，吾人不難發現，我國現行公司重整，仍然尚有若干缺陷，而此缺陷多因人爲因素所造成，與公司重獷制度本身，並無多大實質上之關連。

關鍵字

公司重整 ； 陳德樂法 ； 重整債權 ； 優先重整債權 ； 有擔保重整債權 ； 無擔保重整債權 ； 後償重整債權 ； 一般重整債權 ； 重整債務 ； 關係人會議 ； 以債作股

並列摘要

The purpose of this Article is to point out the defects of the current corporate reorganization under the R. O. C. Corporate Law through comparative study and make some proposals for preventing the abuse of corporate reorganization and promoting the function of corporate reorganization system.
The research in this Article was divided into ”corporate reorganization under the English Corporate Law”, ”corporate reorganization under the American Corporate Law”, ”corporate reorganization under the Japanese Corporate Law” and ”corporate reorganization under the R.O.C. Corporate Law”
In the research of ”The important contents and discussion of laws and ordinances on corporate reorganization”, debates on the problem such as ”legislation example”, ”the object and cause of corporate reorganization”, ”election of inspectors”, ”definition of the parties interested”, ”election of the reorganization supervisor”, ”election of the reorganization manager”, ”the number of times and duties of the meeting of interested parties”, ”claims in reorganization”, ”attending the meeting of relevant parties”, ”prohibiting the vote of a stockholder who got claims in reorganization or stocks by insincerity or distrust”, ”submitter of reorganization plan”, ”the period for the performance of the reorganization plan”, ”jurisdiction of corporate reorganization”, ”the period for the resolution regarding the reorganization plan”, ”establishment of special court”, ”financing of banking organ” etc, through the comparative study.
In addition to Taiwan, only U.S.A. and Japan have the system of corporate reorganization, and the system did not function very well, so many people presented the proposals to repeal the system. Even the system of corporate reorganization under the R. O. C. Corporate Law are not free from faults, the system still has many strong points, such as maintenance of social stability, promotion of economic development. Particularly its defects are purely man-made, nothing to do with the existence of the system. So the conclusion of this Article does not suggest that the system of corporate organization should be abandoned.

並列關鍵字

corporate reorganization ； The Chandler Act

參考文獻

Collier(1965).(Bankruptcy Manual).

Frank R. Kennedy(1980).Foreward: A Brief History of the Bankruptcy Reform Act.58

Harry G. Hen(1974).Corporations Cases and Materials.West Publishing Co..

Harry G. Hen,John R. Alexander(1983).Laws of Corporations.West Publishing Co..

Martin I. Klein(1979).H. R. 8200 The Bankruptcy Act Comes of Age.Commercial Law Journal.