有限责任公司股东分红权保护问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 11:43

本文选题：分红权 + 盈余分配纠纷　；参考：《中南财经政法大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：股利收入和资本利得是股东投资收益的主要组成部分,与股利收入密切相关的股利分配请求权,又称分红权,是股东权益的重要内容之一。受双重征税、事实股利、扩张心理、内部监管等因素的影响,有限责任公司利用不召开股东会、不讨论分红方案、不形成分红决议等方式将公司利润留存于公司,股东实现分红权障碍重重。整合近年来盈余分配案件,法院根据现行《公司法》对利润分配程序的规定,以及司法尊重公司自治的理念,在股东会作出最终分红决议之前,极少支持原告请求判令公司分红的诉请。而在学理层面,已有公司自治、股东自治、商业判断规则、股东合理期待原则等理论论证分红权司法救济的正当性。既然学理已支持分红权保护制度,实务中股东分红权却难以有效实现,其症结就在于法律规定的分红权保护方式存在缺憾。解读我国现行立法对公司分红的原则性、程序性、救济性规定,发现分红权司法救济确有疏漏。进一步分析股东对分红权进行的事先契约安排及其局限性,以及因盈余分配纠纷诉诸法律时可供原告选择的股东退出机制、股东会决议瑕疵之诉,或对董事、高管、其他股东提起的直接诉讼;探索各类分红权救济方式的适用情形及其利弊,得出国内现行立法难以有效保护股东分红权的结论。为借鉴域外经验,梳理两大法系颇具代表性的分红权保护制度:美国的累积盈余税、股权买断、强制股利支付;英国的“不公平损害制度”;德国的“股东同等对待原则”、诚信义务、“退出公司”制度;我国澳门地区商法典要求公司章程必须明确规定分配给股东的盈余比例。域外分红权保护制度从税收征纳、立法理念、立法技术等方面启发我国改进分红权保护方式。回归我国分红权保护制度,在资本多数决原则占主导地位的情形下完善这一制度,须注意契约安排与司法救济相结合,即重视各项契约对公司分红制度的合法安排,尤其是章程修正案变更分红约定的特殊情形,诉诸法律时原告应针对性提出诉讼请求。涉及分红权司法救济时,宏观上应明确司法介入公司自治的边界,即司法介入公司自治的正当性、范围和程度;微观上应注意分红权司法救济的具体问题,可由法律规定最低分红额度、设立股利分配之诉、重塑回购请求权行使程序、明确“滥用股东权利”的内涵。
[Abstract]:Dividend income and capital dividend are the main components of shareholders' investment income. Dividend distribution claim, also known as dividend right, which is closely related to dividend income, is one of the important contents of shareholders' rights and interests. Affected by such factors as double taxation, de facto dividend, psychological expansion, internal supervision, etc., limited liability companies retain their profits in the company by means of not holding shareholders' meetings, not discussing dividend schemes, and not forming dividend resolutions. Shareholders to achieve dividend rights obstacles. Integrating the surplus distribution cases in recent years, the court, in accordance with the provisions of the current Company Law on profit distribution procedures, and the concept of judicial respect for corporate autonomy, before the shareholders' meeting makes a final dividend resolution, There is little support for the plaintiff's application for a dividend. At the academic level, there are some theories, such as company autonomy, shareholder autonomy, commercial judgment rules, shareholders' reasonable expectation principle and so on, to prove the legitimacy of the judicial relief of dividend right. Since the academic theory has supported the protection system of dividend right, it is difficult to realize the shareholder's right of dividend distribution effectively in practice, the crux of which lies in the defect of the way of protection of dividend right stipulated by law. Interpreting the principle, procedure and relief provisions of the current legislation of our country, it is found that the judicial relief of the right of dividend distribution is indeed negligent. Further analyzing the prior contractual arrangement and its limitation of shareholders' right to share out dividends, as well as the shareholders' withdrawal mechanism that can be chosen by the plaintiffs when they resort to the law because of the dispute over the distribution of earnings, the shareholders' meeting's resolution of defects' litigation, or to the directors and executives, The direct lawsuit brought by other shareholders, the application and advantages and disadvantages of the relief methods of various kinds of dividend rights are explored, and the conclusion that the current domestic legislation is difficult to effectively protect the shareholders' dividend right is concluded. In order to draw lessons from the overseas experience, this paper combs the representative dividend protection system of two major legal systems: the accumulated surplus tax of the United States, the stock buyout, the compulsory dividend payment, the British "unfair damage system" and the "principle of equal treatment of shareholders" in Germany. The commercial code of Macao requires that the company's articles of association must specify the proportion of surplus allocated to the shareholders. The protection system of extra-territorial dividend right enlightens our country to improve the way of protection of dividend right from the aspects of tax collection, legislative idea, legislative technology and so on. To return to the protection system of dividend right in our country and to perfect this system under the condition that the principle of majority capital is dominant, we should pay attention to the combination of contractual arrangement and judicial relief, that is, attach importance to the legal arrangement of the company's dividend system under various contracts. Especially in the special case of the amendment of articles of association to change the dividend agreement, the plaintiff should put forward the lawsuit request when resorting to the law. When it comes to the judicial relief of the right to dividends, the boundaries of judicial intervention in corporate autonomy should be clearly defined from the macro point of view, that is, the legitimacy, scope and extent of judicial intervention in corporate autonomy, and the specific problems of judicial relief of the right to share out dividends should be paid attention to microscopically. The minimum dividend amount can be stipulated by law, the lawsuit of dividend distribution should be set up, the procedure of exercising repurchase claim right should be reestablished, and the connotation of "abusing shareholder's right" should be clarified.
【学位授予单位】：中南财经政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【参考文献】