【作者】 杨海；

【导师】 范健；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 对于股东来说,股东新股优先认购权是保护其股权比例不被稀释的重要权利。相比域外国家对其成熟的研究与运用,我国法学界的研究较少,立法也比较简单,《公司法》仅有第35条和第133条第4款对此进行了规定。因此,本文从理论与实务等两个角度对股东新股优先认购权进行研究。文章由六个部分构成。第一部分为绪言,主要论述了股东新股优先认购权的研究背景、研究目的、研究意义,以期揭示股东新股优先认购权对股东、公司、社会公众的重要性。第二部分,分别从股东新股优先认购权的界定、法理基础、功能属性等角度对股东新股优先认购权进行分析。首先文章从目的要求、增资性质、优先性质、认购比例、权利属性等五个方面对股东新股优先认购权的概念进行界定；进而根据股东新股优先认购权与股东优先购买权在核心价值上的不同,对两者进行区别分析；最后从法理基础和功能属性上对其进行更深层次的理论研究。第三部分,首先文章阐述了股东新股优先认购权适用中的特殊问题,认为针对某些特殊情形下的股东新股优先认购权的不适用,应由法律明确规定,以提高适用效率。同时文章还重点论述了股东新股优先认购权的排除问题,发现我国《公司法》只是简单地规定股东新股优先认购权,对其排除的限制性规定非常简单,对排除的形式要件与实质要件更是没有加以规定,这种规定在实践中不利于中小股东权益的保护,因而提出向德国立法学习的建议。第四部分分为两节,第一节论述域外国家对股东新股优先认购权所采取的立法模式,重点选取了英、德、美、日等四国,详解了四国针对股东新股优先认购权的立法沿革及立法背景,进而基于我国现状提出立法修改意见。第二节分别从立法、实务等两个角度对我国股东新股优先认购权现状进行研究。本节最大的创新之处在于对上市公司中股东新股优先认购权的特殊问题进行的研究,文章认为公司在上市首次公开发行股票时,应当赋予原股东一定比例的优先认购权,同时需要对股东新股优先认购权比例进行限制,这种限制需要根据上市公司在行业状况、经营业绩、股权架构等方面的具体状况加以规定。针对定向增发的情况,文章认为定向增发主要是基于特殊的目的,或技术、或设备、或人才,所以股东不应享有新股优先认购权。另外本节还通过对司法判决案例的辨析,从增资决议的有效性、行使期限、除斥期间等角度详解了股东新股优先认购权。第五部分,本文提炼了我国立法模式、救济方式以及其他方面的立法缺陷,并且针对这些缺陷提出完善建议,文章在总结国外宝贵立法经验的基础上建议通过请求停止发行新股、请求侵权人赔偿、提起撤销或无效之诉、责令恶意认购人转让股份等多种途径保护股东的合法权益。第六部分是结语部分,用以对上文各种论述进行精炼化的总结。更多还原

【Abstract】 For shareholders, Shareholder’s preemptive right protecting his stake from diluting is very important.Compared to countries outside with its mature research and application, our study of jurisprudence is less. Legislation is relatively simple. Only the "Company Law" Provision 35 and Provision 133, paragraph 4, which have been stipulated. Therefore, this paper based on the status of the company researches shareholder’s preemptive right combining the theory and practice.This paper is divided into six parts. The first part is an introduction. This part mainly discusses the background of the research and the significance of shareholder’s emptive right. To reveal the significance of Shareholder’s preemptive right for shareholders, the company, and the public.In the second part, the author analyze Shareholder’s preemptive right respectively from the definition of shareholder’s emptive right, the legal basis of shareholder’s emptive right, the functional attributes of shareholder’s emptive right etc. Firstly, the paper defines the concept of shareholder’s emptive right from the purpose of the request, the nature of the capital increase, the nature of the priority, the ratio of the subscription, the property of rights. Secondly, depending on the differences of the core values, the paper analyzes Shareholder’s preemptive right and pre-emptive rights of shareholders. Finally, from the legal basis of Shareholder’s preemptive right and the functional attributes of Shareholder’s preemptive right, the paper has a deeper theoretical research for Shareholder’s preemptive right.In the third part, firstly, the paper discusses the situation that Shareholder’s preemptive right does not apply to some special cases. The paper believes that it shall be specified by law in order to apply effectively. At the same time, the paper focuses on the tissue of exclusion of the shareholder’s emptive right. We find that China’s "Company Law" rules it simply. The law provides few restrictive conditions for us and even does not rule the formal requirements and substantive requirements of the exclusion. In practice, the provisions are not conducive to minority shareholders, which make me recommend learning from the German legislation.The fourth part is divided into two sections. The first section discusses the legislative model of Shareholder’s preemptive right of the extraterritorial States, focusing on Britain, Germany, the United States and Japan. The paper explains the legislative history and the legislative background of the shareholder’s emptive right in the countries. Then, the paper gives some legislative amendments which are based on our proposed legislative status. The second section discusses our proposed legislative status of Shareholder’s preemptive right form legislation and practice. The biggest innovation in this section lies in the study of the special problems of the shareholder’s emptive right of listed companies. It is thinked that shareholders should be given priority subscription rights at the listed IPO. For the protection of minority shareholders, it is necessary to limit the proportion of subscription. Restrictions are based on industry position, operating results, ownership structure and other aspects of companies. For the case of private placement, the paper thinks that the private placement is mainly based on special purposes, such as technology, equipment, personnel, so shareholders should not have the right. In addition, this section discusses Shareholder’s preemptive right in the judicial decision from the effectiveness of the resolution of capital increase, the exercise period and the scheduled period.In the fifth part, the paper refines the defects of our legislation, legislative remedies and other aspects and makes recommendations for improving these defects. Particularly in remedy, our legislation is basically blank. Some suggestions are based on summing up valuable legislative experience of foreign countries to protect the legitimate rights and interests of shareholders, such as a request to stop issuing new shares, requesting for compensation from the infringer, filing a lawsuit which is revoked or invalid, and commanding the malicious Subscriber to transfer Shares. The sixth part is the conclusion part which summarizes a variety of perspectives above.更多还原