股权变动公示相关法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-09-11 08:31

【摘要】：新《公司法》对股权变动模式规定较为混乱。对无记名股票和上市公司股权变动采债权形式主义,其公示方法分别为交付和登记；而对有限公司股权变动与非上市公司的股权变动模式没有明确规定。非常有必要进行梳理和重新论证。第一部分主要论述我国该选择哪一种股权变动的立法模式,股权作为类物权,可以采用物权领域确定的债权形式主义模式,区分原因行为和结果行为,股权的变动应通过公示生效。第二部分论述具体公示方法,是文章重点。参照物权变动的公示方式,大体存在占有、交付、登记三种。首先从理论上来说股权变动的公示,应当是单数的公示。将交付和登记都设为生效没有逻辑性。二者并存会导致整个公示制度和公示结果的不确定性,也就失去了公示的意义。就登记和交付的两种公示方式的优劣而言,登记的公示,更能起到公开宣示的效果,因此,交付和登记并存,必然结果是登记吞并交付。针对股票(出资证明书)的交付构成双方之间的股权变动,只不过不能对抗公司,更不能对抗第三人,登记才形成后两种效力的观点,笔者认为,股票和出资证明书仅是股权(股份)凭证,仅具有证权效果,而不具有设权效果,交付股权凭证不构成股权变动的效果。其次,从现实情况来看,由于信息技术的发展兴起了无纸化,改变了股权的表彰方式,在无纸化发行和交易趋势下,只能通过登记的公示方式来表彰股权及其变动,适用动产交付规则的空间已经越来越小。交付只在无记名股的微小领域产生股权变动的效果。在选择登记的情况下,股东名册的变更登记是合格的股权变动公示方式；工商登记来源于行政管理需要,赋予其决定大量市场行为生效与否的权力与法理无据。工商登记虽然起着强化公示公信力,但同时也牺牲了法律逻辑,商事效率,而因立法上的妥协造成的冲突矛盾也牺牲了商事安全。股东名册在实践中的不足,不足以改变制度的合理性,相反,这说明需要采取措施增强公信力,而不是让工商登记取而代之。第三部分：股东名册登记的制度构建,股东名册的公信力不足不是股东名册本身的问题,而是人们对公司内部管理的不信任,导致股东名册应有的法律效力被忽视。笔者认为有限责任公司和未上市公司都可以比照上市公司的做法的,将股东名册托管于某一独立的第三方。托管的法律性质,笔者认为民事委托代理性质,公司的股东名册是受托管理人的规定名册的副本,不一致的,以受托管理人的记载为准。未上市股份公司托管机构应由公司制的市场中介机构担任,政府可以有一定的监管。有限公司的托管机构可以从工商系统分离出来,如果不能摆脱行政化倾向,也可以和未上市股份公司一样由公司制的市场主体担任。本文通过比较分析,演绎推理,实证研究得出结论：股权变动公示的场合,股东名册是理所当然的选择,登记于股东名册的股权享有生效力,对抗力,推定力,免责力和公信力,股东名册登记不仅对抗公司及其他股东,也对抗第三人。但是股东名册仅在形式上有意义,也即表面上的推定力,如果有相反证据,可以推翻股东名册的记载。股东名册的公信力可通过托管来加强。
[Abstract]:The new Company Law is confused about the regulation of the mode of equity change. It adopts the creditor's rights formalism for the change of bearer shares and listed companies'equity, and its publicity methods are delivery and registration, respectively. It is necessary to sort out and re-prove the mode of equity change between limited companies and non-listed companies.
The first part mainly discusses which kind of legislative mode of stock right change should be chosen in our country. As a kind of real right, stock right can adopt the formalism mode of creditor's right determined in the realm of real right to distinguish the cause behavior from the result behavior.
The second part discusses the specific method of publicity, which is the focus of the article. There are three kinds of publicity: possession, delivery and registration. First of all, in theory, the publicity of equity change should be singular. It is illogical to set delivery and registration as effective. The coexistence of the two will lead to the whole publicity system and publicity conclusion. As far as the merits and demerits of the two modes of publicity of registration and delivery are concerned, the publicity of registration can play a better role in publicity. Therefore, the coexistence of delivery and registration will inevitably result in registration, annexation and delivery. The author holds that the stock certificate and the capital contribution certificate are only the stock (share) certificate, and only have the effect of the certificate, but not the effect of the establishment of the right. The delivery of the stock certificate does not constitute the effect of the change of the stock right. Secondly, in reality, because of the issuance of information technology. The emergence of paperless exhibition has changed the way of recognition of equity. Under the trend of paperless issuance and trading, the only way to commend equity and its changes is through registered publicity.
In the case of selective registration, the change registration of shareholders'roster is a qualified way to announce the change of shareholders' equity; the industrial and commercial registration comes from the need of administration and gives them the power and legal basis to decide whether a large number of market actions take effect or not. The lack of shareholders'roster in practice is not enough to change the rationality of the system. On the contrary, it shows that measures need to be taken to enhance credibility, rather than to let industrial and commercial registration replace it.
The third part: the establishment of shareholder register system, the lack of credibility of the shareholder register is not the problem of the shareholder register itself, but people's distrust of the internal management of the company, resulting in the neglect of the legal effect of the shareholder register. The legal nature of the trusteeship, the author believes that the company's shareholder register is a copy of the stipulated list of trustees, inconsistent with the records of the trustees, unlisted joint stock companies should be trustees of the company's market intermediary, the government. The trusteeship of a limited company can be separated from the industrial and commercial system. If it can not get rid of the administrative tendency, it can also be held by the market main body of the company system like the unlisted joint stock company.
Through comparative analysis, deductive reasoning and empirical research, this paper draws a conclusion that the shareholders'register is a natural choice in the occasion of the announcement of stock ownership changes. The stocks registered in the shareholders' register enjoy the validity, antagonism, presumption, exemption and credibility. The registration of the shareholders'register not only antagonizes the company and other shareholders, but also antagonizes the third party. The Eastern Register is meaningful only in form, that is, the superficial presumption. If there is evidence to the contrary, the record of the shareholders'roster can be overturned. The credibility of the shareholders' roster can be enhanced by trusteeship.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】