【作者】 李哲；

【导师】 杨海瑶；

【作者基本信息】 沈阳师范大学 ， 法律硕士（非法学）（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 在投资人强某向目标公司即瀚霖公司进行股权投资的一系列合同中,作为目标公司股东同时也是公司法定代表人的曹某与投资人强某之间约定,如果目标公司没够能在股权投资合同约定的时间内实现上市,投资人可要求目标公司的股东溢价“赎回”其现有股权,目标公司则对股东“赎回”投资人股权之事项承担连带担保责任。在目标公司确定不能上市后,股东并未向投资人支付“赎回”股权的股权转让款,同时目标公司也未履行约定的担保责任,于是投资人将二者诉至法院,请求法院判令目标公司的股东按照双方之间的股权回购条款溢价回购其股权,同时也请求法院判令目标公司按照担保条款的约定向投资人连带清偿股权转让款。本案最终被最高院提审再审,最终支持了投资人的诉讼请求。笔者将这一案件的争议问题整理如下:其一为投资人与股东之间这种约定业绩条件的股权回购条款是否有效;其二为目标公司为股东之间交易提供担保的条款是否有效;其三则为股东和目标公司的法律责任以及法律责任的履行问题。本案实际上是一起“对赌协议”纠纷,这类纠纷在学界和实践中存在很多争议,且其中涉及了同样具有争议的公司担保问题。笔者在写作过程中将争议条款的有效性和法律责任履行进行了区分,从合同法和公司法两个维度分析这种案件的处理方式。本文首先分析了投资人与原股东之间的股权回购条款的性质,在充分了解其法律性质后进一步回答其效力问题。从条款表现出的特征上看,案件中所涉及的股权回购条款实质上是一类的“对赌协议”,在对这一条款定性以后,比较了“对赌协议”与和它相似几种行为的异同点,指出其具有的特殊法律性质,再运用合同法理论对其效力进行分析,结合当前诉讼、仲裁等司法实践对其作合法性分析。其次,本文从公司担保的角度论证目标公司为股东对赌提供担保条款的效力,并为此近一步分析我国公司法中关于公司担保规定之规范属性,投资人善意的认定标准以及为对赌提供担保的特殊性问题。最后,本文聚焦于股东及目标公司的法律责任上,对比了股权回购、现金补偿以及公司连带担保责任的对赌责任承担方式,并指出公司承担对赌责任受到公司法原则的管制,本文从资本维持原则的角度分析对赌责任应当如何履行,指出目前我国公司作为责任主体对赌责任的履行障碍,并从域外和我国司法实践的启示中寻找解决途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 In a series of contracts in which investor Qiang invest in the target company i.e.Hanlin,Cao,who is the shareholder of the target company and the legal representative of the company,agrees that if the target company fails to list in a certain period of time,the investor has the right to ask the shareholders to "buy back" their shares,and the target company bears joint and several liability for the guarantee.After the target company determined that it could not be listed,the shareholders did not pay the equity transfer to the investor,and the target company did not bear joint and several security liability,so the investor sued the two companies to the court,requesting the legal representative of the target company to buy back their shares at a premium in accordance with the equity repurchase clause between the two parties,and requesting the target to bear joint and several security liability.The case was eventually retried by the Supreme Court and eventually upheld the investor’s claim.The author arranges the dispute of this case as follows: one is whether the equity repurchase clause of the agreed performance target between the investor and the shareholder is valid;the other is whether the clause of the target company providing guarantee for the shareholder is valid;and the third is the performance of the gambling liability of the shareholder and the target company.This case is actually a "gambling agreement" dispute,and there are many disputes in academic circles and in practice,and it involves the same controversial corporate guarantee issues.In the process of writing,the author makes a distinction between the validity of the dispute clause and the performance of legal responsibility,and analyzes the processing method of this kind of case from the two dimensions of contract law and company law.This paper first analyzes the nature of the equity repurchase clause between the investor and the original shareholder,and further answers the question of itseffectiveness after understanding its legal nature.The "share buyback" clause involved in the case is actually a gambling agreement between investors and shareholders.After defining this clause,we compare the similarities and differences between it and other similar behaviors,and make a legitimacy analysis combined with judicial practice.Secondly,it demonstrates the effectiveness of the guarantee clause provided by the target company for shareholders,and analyzes the normative nature of Article 16 of the Company Law,the standard of bona fide identification,and the particularity of the guarantee for gambling.Finally,this paper focuses on the legal liability of shareholders and target companies,compares the way of undertaking "gambling" liability with equity repurchase,cash compensation and joint and guarantee liability,and points out the obstacles to the performance of gambling liability,and it is also regulated by the principle of capital maintenance.更多还原