公司为股东或实际控制人提供担保的效力分析

发布时间：2018-08-03 09:06

【摘要】：公司担保是公司权利能力的具体体现之一,目前我国司法实务界中对于没有经过股东会或者股东大会,为本公司的关联股东以及实际的控制人提供担保的行为在实务中是普遍存在的现象,法院在裁判类似案件时,基于对保护中小股东利益、维护公司之外利害关系人利益和市场交易成本的考量,原则上倾向认定公司的担保行为有效。本文通过对三个典型案例,分析未经股东会或者股东大会表决同意,为本公司的关联股东、实际控制人提供担保的效力问题,总结出目前我国司法实践中倾向于认为未经股东会或者股东大会表决同意,而为其关联股东、实际控制人提供担保的行为属于有效的司法态度。在前述事实基础上,本文对《公司法》第十六条第二款进行了分析。文章首先肯定,继而应用目的解释的方法对《公司法》第十六条第二款的规范性质做了进一步的分析。在明确《公司法》第十六条第二款属于管理性规范的基础上,文章从对外担保要求经过公司的股东会或者股东大会决议的意义、股东会或股东大会决议的效力范围、商事外观主义对第三人合理信赖的保护三个方面论证了未经股东会或股东大会决议的担保行为认定为有效的理由。文章的最后,笔者探讨了公司为股东及实际控制人提供担保的司法案件中债权人是否应在合理限度内进行审查,并明确债权人在公司为其股东或实际控制人提供担保时,应负有合理的形式审查义务,并且债权人的审查义务具有可操作性和合理性。
[Abstract]:The company guarantee is one of the concrete embodiment of the company's rights and abilities. At present, in the judicial and practical circles of our country, there is no shareholder meeting or shareholders' meeting. The act of providing security to the associated shareholders and actual controllers of the company is a common phenomenon in practice. In deciding similar cases, the court is based on the protection of the interests of minority shareholders. The consideration of safeguarding the interests of stakeholders and market transaction costs outside the company tends to determine in principle that the company's guarantee is effective. Through three typical cases, this paper analyzes the validity of the guarantee for the associated shareholders and actual controllers of the company without the consent of the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders' general meeting. It is concluded that the judicial practice in our country at present tends to think that it is an effective judicial attitude to provide security for its associated shareholders and actual controllers without the consent of shareholders' meeting or shareholders' general meeting. On the basis of the above facts, the article analyzes Article 16, paragraph 2, of Company Law. The article affirms at first, and then further analyzes the normative nature of Article 16, paragraph 2, of Company Law by the method of purpose interpretation. On the basis of making clear that the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Company Law belongs to the management norm, the article requires that the meaning of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting or shareholders' meeting of the company, the scope of validity of the resolution of the shareholders' meeting or shareholders' general meeting, The three aspects of the protection of the third party's reasonable trust by commercial factionalism prove that the guarantee act without the resolution of shareholders' meeting or shareholders' meeting is considered to be valid. At the end of the paper, the author discusses whether the creditors should be examined within the reasonable limits in the judicial cases where the company provides security for shareholders and actual controllers, and makes it clear that when the company provides security for its shareholders or actual controllers, There should be reasonable obligation of formal examination, and the obligation of creditor's examination is operable and reasonable.
【学位授予单位】：内蒙古大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【相似文献】