【作者】 李响；

【导师】 宋亚辉；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 《公司法》在2005年修改时,增加了多处公司章程“另有规定的,从其规定”,其中第71条第4款赋予了有限责任公司章程在股权转让事项上作出“另有规定”的自治权利。基于该条规定,公司一般会在章程中对股权转让事项另行安排,却易引发诸多纠纷。实践中,有一类章程自治条款引起理论界和司法实务界的巨大争议,即公司要求股东强制转让股权的条款。指导案例96号肯定了初始章程中该类条款的效力,初始章程由于具备全体股东合意,因此能够约束全体股东。但公司章程修正案与初始章程相比,存在合意度的差异,若公司修改章程时增加了强制股权转让的条款,异议股东则会以公司未经其本人同意处分股权为由诉至法院。因此,公司章程修正案中增加的强制股权转让条款的效力,成为本文研究的问题。本文分为问题的提出、正文和结论三大部分,其中正文包括五个部分:第一部分:笔者梳理了司法实务界和理论界对于章程修正案中强制股权转让条款效力的观点,发现司法实务界和理论界均存在有效、无效和效力区分三种观点。其中效力区分的观点认为修改后的章程对异议股东不能产生约束力,这种观点对章程修正案的效力范围提出质疑,因此需要对章程修正案的效力范围进行探讨。第二部分:在分析章程修正案的效力范围之前,首先需要对章程的性质予以澄清。契约说更能全面解释章程的性质,但是公司章程与传统的民事合同存在区别。将章程认定为“不完全合同”是对章程性质的完整评价,由此可以认为章程修正案与初始章程的效力具有连续性。同时,在资本多数决的决议规则下,公司章程修正案体现的是一种推定的意思表示一致,因此章程修正案应对全体股东产生约束力。第三部分:在章程修正案能够对全体股东产生约束力的基础上,试图为公司章程对股权转让进行自治时划定一个合理边界:首先,公司章程的自治条款应符合第71条“另有规定”的真正含义;其次,还应注重公司人合性与资合性的平衡;再次,应符合股东加入公司的合理期待;最后,公司章程自治还要受到平等原则的约束。第四部分:基于前文划定的合理边界,对强制股权转让条款的内容是否溢出了该边界进行验证。经过验证后发现,强制股权转让条款不符合“另有规定”的真正含义,可能造成公司人合性与资合性的失衡,并且会导致股东合理期待的落空,虽符合公司法上的股东平等原则但却有违民事平等原则。由此本文问题的实质转化为公司自治与股东股权保护之间的冲突。第五部分:公司修改章程是公司自治的体现,但是强制股权转让条款却造成了对异议股东的侵害,因此需要在利益权衡的基础上,对强制股权转让条款的效力进行认定。多数情况下,公司修改章程的目的都是为了公司整体利益,并且符合多数股东的利益,实践中很难将公司修改章程的目的认定为恶意。股东虽股权受到侵害,但是却能获得充分救济,因此相较而言,应倾向于保护公司整体和多数股东的利益。最后对全文进行总结并得出本文结论,公司章程修正案中的强制股权转让条款应被认定为有效。更多还原

【Abstract】 When the "Company Law" was amended in 2005,a number of company articles of association were added,"other regulations,from which it is prescribed",of which Article 71,paragraph 4,gives the limited liability company’s articles of association self-government right "on the equity transfer matters".Based on the provisions of this article,the company generally arranges separately for the equity transfer in the articles of association,but it is easy to cause many disputes.In practice,there is a kind of charter autonomy clauses that cause huge controversy in the theoretical and judicial practice circles,that is,the company requires shareholders to transfer the equity clause.The Guiding Case No.96 affirmed the validity of such clauses in the initial article of association.The initial articles of association was able to bind all shareholders because it had the consent of all shareholders.However,compared with the initial articles of association,the amendments to the company’s articles of association have differences in the degree of agreement.If the company increases the terms of the compulsory equity transfer when the company changes its articles of association the dissident shareholders will appeal to the court on the grounds that the company has not agreed to dispose of the shares.Therefore,the effectiveness of the mandatory equity transfer clause added in the amendments to the articles of association has become a problem in this paper.This paper is divided into three parts:the proposal,the main body and the conclusion.The main body consists of five parts:Part I:The author sorts out the views of the judicial practice circles and the theoretical circles on the efectiveness of the mandatory equity transfer clause in the amendments to the articles of association,and finds that there are three viewpoints of validity,inefectiveness and effectiveness distinction between the judicial practice and the theoretical circles.Among them,the view of effectiveness distinguishes that the revised articles of association cannot bind the dissident shareholders.This view challenges the scope of the amendments to the charter,so it is necessary to discuss the scope of the amendments to the articles of association.Part II:Before analyzing the scope of the amendments to the articles of association,it is first necessary to clarify the nature of the articles of association.The contract theory can explain the nature of the articles of association more comprehensively,but the company articles of association is different from the traditional civil contract.The identification of a charter as an "incomplete contract" is a complete evaluation of the nature of the charter,and thus the validity of the amendment to the articles of association and the initial articles of association can be considered to be continuous.At the same time,under the resolution rule of the capital majority decision,the amendments to the company’s articles of association reflect a presumption of agreement,so the amendments to the articles of association should be binding on all shareholders.Part III:On the basis of the amendment to the articles of association can be binding on all shareholders,trying to establish a reasonable boundary for the autonomy of the company’s articles of association for equity transfer:First,the autonomy clause of the company’s articles of association should comply with Article 71.Secondly,it should also pay attention to the balance between the company’s humanity and capital;again,it should meet the reasonable expectations of shareholders to join the company;finally,the autonomy of the company’s charter is subject to the principle of equality.Part IV:Based on the reasonable boundary delineated in the preceding paragraph,verify whether the content of the mandatory equity transfer clause overflows the boundary.After verification,it is found that the mandatory equity transfer clause does not meet the true meaning of "other regulations",which may result in the imbalance of the company’s humanity and capital,and will lead to the reasonable expectation of shareholders,although it is in line with the shareholders’ equality in the company law.Principles but violate the principle of civil equality.Therefore,the essence of the problem in this paper is transformed into the conflict between corporate autonomy and shareholder equity protection.Part V:The company’s amendment to articles of association is the embodiment of the company’s autonomy,but the compulsory equity transfer clause has caused the infringement of the dissident shareholders.Therefore,it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the compulsory equity transfer clause on the basis of the interest balance.In most cases,the purpose of the company’s amendment to the articles of association is for the company’s overall interests,and in line with the interests of the majority of shareholders,in practice it is difficult to identify the purpose of the company’s amendments to the articles of association as malicious.Shareholders,although their equity is infringed,can receive adequate relief,so they should tend to protect the interests of the company as a whole and the majority of shareholders.Finally,the paper summarizes the full text and concludes that the mandatory equity transfer clause in the amendment to the company’s articles of association should be considered valid.更多还原