【摘要】 针对名义股东处分代持股的法律效力问题，学界曾经有较大与较长时间的争论，至《公司法解释三》第二十五条一锤定音，参照善意取得制度予以规制，其意图旨在平衡隐名出资人、名义股东以及外部第三人的利益，但其隐含有“名义股东转让股份系无权处分”之意，反而动摇了第二十四条所确立的股权代持中股东资格的认定标准。在股权代持的情形下，采纳形式说作为股东资格的认定标准具有其合理性，其不仅是对外观主义原则和公示主义原则的遵循，有利于公司法体系的逻辑自洽，而且能够较好地平衡各方的风险和利益，遏制商事实践中股权代持泛滥的不正常现象。据此，隐名出资人和名义股东的代持法律关系应受合同法规制，其对外部第三人不具有法律约束力，名义股东取得代持股份的股东资格，其转让代持股的行为属于有权处分，即使其未经隐名出资人同意，处分行为亦属有效，而隐名出资人仅能向名义股东主张合同权利，非经显名化程序不能取得股东资格。更多还原

【Abstract】 As for the legal effect of the disposition of nominee holding by registered shareholders, there used to be a big and long-time debate in the academic circle until the final decision was made in Article 25 of the Company Law Interpretation III,which regulates it by referring to the bona fide acquisition with the intentiong to balance the interests of dormant contributors, registered shareholders and external third parties.However, it implies that registered shareholders have no right to dispose nominee holding, which shakes the standard for determining the qualification of shareholders in the nominee shareholding established by Article 24.In the case of nominee shareholding, it is reasonable to adopt the formality theory as the standard, which is not only to follow the principles of Rechtsschein Theorie and Public Exposure Theorie and conducive to the logical self-consistency of the company law system, but also can better balance the risks and interests of all parties and curb the abnormal phenomenon of excessive nominee shareholding in commercial practice.As a result, the legal relationship of nominee holding should be subject to the Contract Law and not legally binding on the external third party.Therefore, registered shareholders, who obtain the shareholder qualification, have right to dispose nominee holding, even if it is not approved by the dormant contributors.On the other hand, dormant contributors can only claim contractual rights to the registered shareholders, and cannot become a shareholder without the explicit naming procedure.更多还原