“债转股”若干法律问题研究

【作者】 郑志军；

【导师】 张秀全；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 民商法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 我国经济改革正在向纵深发展，市场经济逐步建立。从整体上讲，国民经济得到了长足发展，但在这高速发展的背后却积留了不少更困难、深层次的问题，其中便是国有商业银行巨额不良贷款和国有企业高负债率下的普遍亏损这一对问题。参照国际上处置银行不良债权的通行做法，结合国内实际情况，我国政府选择了“债转股”。由于“债转股”政策的出台，在法律层面缺乏斟密论证，国家有关部门为此虽然颁布了《关于实施债权转股权若干问题的意见》和《金融资产管理公司条例》等指导“债转股”工作，但就有关政策文件本身及具体操作与现行法仍有许多冲突。本文正是着眼于此，用法观点对经济生活中这一热点问题采用比较分析的实证方法对其中的一些法律问题进行剖析。 本文包括引言和正文三个部分。 引言部分简述了“债转股”政策的出台背景和债转股的目标。即：一是减少国有商业银行的不良资产，提高国有商业银行资产质量；二是降低国有企业的负债率，减轻国有企业的债务负担，增加国有企业资本金，扭转一部分国有企业的债务亏损，建立现代企业制度。然后分析了“债转股”对三方主体，即国有商业银行、转股企业、政府(社会)之潜在价值。文章同时指出这些价值的实现是以成功的“债转股”为前提条件的，而为“债转股”政策及实践找到合法依据是其关键所在。 第一部分是“债转股”的法理基础和性质特征。我国的“债转股”悸于商业银行法禁止商业银行直接投资的规定，所以我国是借金融资产管理公司这一中介来完成的。它可分为商业银行与金融资产管理公司的“债转债”和金融资产管理公司与企业的“债转股”。文章首先对“债转股”的法学理论作了探讨，其中在“债转债”中主要论述了债权让与理论，不仅回顾了其沿革，而且找出了在我国法上的根据，同时指出“债转股”中债权股权化的理论之所在。然后论证了“债转股”股权的普通股性质。最后对与“债转股”最为相近的可转换公司债进行了比较，通过比较，明析了二者的不同，特别突出了“债转股”的内在特征。 第二部分是“债转股”的法律冲突及解决。市场经济从一定意义上讲，即为法制经济，因此市场经济行为必须受法律规范。文章详细分析了“债转股”政策及其实践中与我国现行法的冲突，并提出相对应立法建议。 首先，作为“债转股”一方主体的国有商业银行实际享受了国家的特惠待遇，目前的做法是国家变相承担了它们大量不良债权之潜亏，这与我国商业银行法规定商业银行“实行自主经营、自担风险、自负盈亏、自我约束”相悖。这一不法行为一定要改变，否则“债转股”会激励国有商业银行的道德风险，致使其过分依赖国家而不是自己去处置不良债权。与《民法》冲突方面，其一是过度的行政干预对民法平等理念的冲击:银行中巨额不良债权是普遍存在，而“债转股”只允许四家国有商业银行实施，其他性质的商业银行被排除在外;而对“债转股”企业来讲，也只有部分国有大中型企业可以参与，其他类型企业和大部分国有中、小型企业并无资格参与，这样就人为地打破了市场经济中的民事主体的平等地位。至于“债转股”的中介金融资产管理公司，有关政策文件称其为“独立市场主体”，但稍加分析，我们可以发现，它并没有作为独立责任主体应具有的权利，这与民法权利、义务、责任相一致原则不符。与《合同法》冲突有二:其一，“债转股”双方主体是金融资产管理公司和拟转股企业，因此，签约主体不言而喻。而实际操作中，却是拟转股企业股东和金融资产管理公司。其实，拟转股企业股东，哪怕是唯一股东，它也不能取代拟转股企业本身;其二，《金融资产管理公司条例》中规定的金融资产管理公司受让国有商业银行债权是“收购”关系，喻意自主、自愿、平等地进行，而实际上金融资产管理公司是被“强制收购”。核心问题是银行不良债权损失由谁承担问题，笔者认为应具体分析其形成原因，分别由不同主体承担实为上策。与《公司法》冲突最多:(1)是债权出资问题。一般意义上债权转股权弊大于利:违背资本充实原则;容易助长欺诈行为;可能影响到公司正常经营等，但有条件的允许“债转股”可谓利大于弊。这可从接受债权出资企业、时间及对出资债权的限制等几方面修改公司法，使之具有合法性。(2)金融资产管理公司转投资限制问题。四家金融资产管理公司注册资本均为100亿人民币，而对拟转股企业金额则高达几千亿，要实现“债转股”目标，必须突破公司法对公司转投资额不超过50%的限制，这就要求明确金融资产管理公司的性质，修改公司法相关条文。(3)公司股东治理权行使问题。金融资产管理公司作为普通股股东应享有公司法规定的权利，而《关于实施债权转股权若千问题意见》对股东若干权利进行限制。笔者认为不妥，因股东权利是法定权利，《意见》不能随意剥夺。(4)企业回购股份问题。目前“债转股”实际操作都要求转股企业在若干年(一般是3年)高利率回购金融资产管理公司持有的股份，这明显有违公司法关于股份回购的规定。另一方面，短短3年时间要企业抽出如此更多还原

【Abstract】 Economic reform continues further, Market-Economy of Socialism system established gradually. Generally Speaking, national economy develops in every line despite some harder & complicated problems, the high debt ratio of the state-owned enterprises & financial risks in banks is one pair of them. Our government adopts the policy of Debt-to-Stock Swap considering the international experiences & interior conditions. Without careful legal discussion, although relevant departments carried out "opinion on Debt-to-Stock Swap" & "AMC Regulation " to guide , there are still so much Contradictions between these instruments and the present laws. Considering this, I expect to discuss this hot economic issue with legal eyes.This paper consists of introduction & other three parts.The introduction states how & why this policy comes into being. Its aim is to improve the debt ration of the state-owned enterprises in China, & reduce the financial risks. Then the paper analyses the potential values to the "three parties" But this policy & its practices should be legal.Part one is about the policy’s legal basis & natures. To avoid the forbidden articles of Commercial Bank Law, AMC acts as the medium. So this policy goes two steps, the first step is Debt-to-debt; the second step is Debt-to-Stock. The step of Debt-to-Debt follows the theory of the transference of creditor’s rights, then points out the theory of Debt -to-Stock. The paper insists the nature of Debt-to-Stock is common share. Following this, the paper makes a list of natures of Debt-to-Stock by comparing with convertible bond.Part two is about legal conflicts in Debt-to-Stock, & how to ’ improve them. Market economy means legal economy in someways, so any economic activity should observe the laws . This part analyses the conflicts between the policy & present laws, then resolutions follow. Conflict with Commercial Bank Law is that the policy shakes its basic rules: "manage by themselves, be responsible for their own actions." Conflicts with Civil Law can be seen in two aspects, but anyway, it is too much administrative intervene; More conflicts with the Corporation Law on Debt-to-Stock: how to run the stock- holder’s rights , how about AMC’s ability to invest , whether the corporation allowed to buy back the stock & how to be listed ; Two Conflicts with Contract Law can be cleared. One is contract parties are AMC & the enterprise , not any shareholder; the other is the relation between AMC & the commercial bank is "purchase" , but it’s very different from the stipulations of Purchase Contract; Conflict with Guarantee Law is the debt under maximum mortgage is forbidden to be transferred, otherwise its invalid. Conflict with Bankruptcy Law is, even after Debt-to-Stock, the other creditors still have rights to apply bankruptcy, then AMC share holders need special treasures to protect, or Debt-to-Stock has no help to the enterprises.Part three concerns how to build legal person governance structure well through Debt-to-Stock. The paper believes, to reach the goal of Debt-to-Stock, the state owned enterprises must be done well, for it’s the enterprises lead the bank to such a bad conditions . Then the paper regards the fundamental reason to cause the loss of enterprises is its defect in governance structure, not the interests & tax. This can be caused by bad inspiring system & binding instruments, inefficient but continues to expand. So this paper suggests to build governance structure well with the help of AMC share holders. Above all, we need multiple investors. TOreach this aim we have to break up the fixed AMC - Bank model, then transfer the stocks to clerks, to foreign investors, to excellententerprises. Before this step, taking measures to clear away the obstacles is very necessary. The paper stresses the importance of every stock-holder’s right to be run. Finally, the sincere warning can be heard: the Debt-to-Stock without sound governance structure, its aim couldn’t be reached, even the former could be weakened.At the end, the paper poi更多还原