本文選題：非公眾股份有限公司 + 公司章程��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷發(fā)展，公司章程在公司治理過程的地位和作用不斷凸顯。但在實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中公司章程與公司法規(guī)范之間的沖突也層出不窮，如何認(rèn)定章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓條款的效力是目前一個(gè)較為突出的問題。在公司成立之初，全體股東一致通過公司章程中有關(guān)限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的條款，但該限制條款卻與公司法“股權(quán)自由轉(zhuǎn)讓”的規(guī)定相沖突。在司法實(shí)踐中，司法者往往對(duì)于公司的類型不加區(qū)分，特別是在處理股份有限公司股權(quán)糾紛時(shí)，直接以股份有限公司的股權(quán)自由轉(zhuǎn)讓作為判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，否定章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓條款的效力。經(jīng)濟(jì)迅猛發(fā)展，滯后的法律條文已經(jīng)無法適應(yīng)司法實(shí)務(wù)的需要。賦予章程更多的自治空間，不僅能維護(hù)非公眾股份有限公司的人合性也有助于維護(hù)股東間的信義義務(wù)。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)公司與股東整體利益的最大化，我們有必要借鑒國外的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)，對(duì)我國立法和司法進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)恼{(diào)整，以適應(yīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的需要。 本文以常州百貨大樓股份有限公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓糾紛案為例，借助有關(guān)理論對(duì)實(shí)務(wù)中的問題進(jìn)行分析。本文主要分為以下幾個(gè)部分： 第一部分，案情基本情況介紹。本文選取常州百貨大樓股份有限公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓糾紛一案對(duì)章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓問題進(jìn)行討論分析，并歸納出本案的爭議焦點(diǎn)。 第二部分，分析非公眾股份有限公司章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓條款的效力。從現(xiàn)行立法的邏輯為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，闡述非公眾股份有限公司與有限責(zé)任公司的相似性。以非公眾股份有限公司的人合性與章程的契約性解釋章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的對(duì)內(nèi)效力。 第三部分，章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的邊界。允許章程對(duì)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓進(jìn)行限制，雖然一方面可以使公司的人合性免受侵害，但另一方面會(huì)使股東權(quán)利受到侵害。所以，為使公司與股東利益得到平衡。章程對(duì)股權(quán)的限制應(yīng)具有合理的邊界。 第四部分，股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓協(xié)議的效力。股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓協(xié)議雖然是股東與第三人之間的契約，但是股權(quán)不是傳統(tǒng)的物權(quán)或是債權(quán)，股權(quán)應(yīng)屬社員權(quán)具有人身性。所以，對(duì)于股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓協(xié)議的效力還應(yīng)結(jié)合具體情況加以分析。 第五部分，對(duì)章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析。傳統(tǒng)的以人合性或資合性為基礎(chǔ)的分析思路，都有各自的局限性。以法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的分析方法則可以解釋章程限制股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的實(shí)質(zhì)。 第六部分，，研究結(jié)論和建議。通過全文的分析得出一個(gè)合理可行的研究結(jié)論。并針對(duì)有關(guān)問題提出修改建議。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of market economy, the articles of association of the company continue to highlight the status and role in the process of corporate governance. However, in the practice of conflict between standard charter and company law also emerge in an endless stream, how to determine the effect of the articles of association limited equity transfer clauses is a prominent problem at present. At the inception of the company, all shareholders unanimously the transfer of the ownership restrictions in the articles of association provisions, but the provisions of the company law and the restrictions are "equity free transfer" of the conflict. In judicial practice, the judiciary often for the type of company without distinction, especially in the treatment of Limited by Share Ltd ownership disputes, directly to the Limited by Share Ltd's equity free transfer as the judging standard. Deny the effectiveness of constitution limit equity transfer clauses. The rapid development of economy, legal provisions lag has been unable to adapt to the needs of judicial practice. Give the constitution more autonomous space, not only can maintain the non public Limited by Share Ltd people together also helps maintain the shareholders the fiduciary duty. In order to maximize the overall interests of the company and shareholders, we need to learn from foreign legislative experience, make appropriate adjustments to the legislation and law, in order to meet the needs of the economy development.
Taking the case of Limited by Share Ltd equity transfer dispute in Changzhou department store as an example, this paper analyzes the problems in practice with the help of relevant theories.
The first part introduces the basic situation of the case. This article selects the case of Limited by Share Ltd's equity transfer dispute in Changzhou department store to discuss and analyze the issue of the restriction on the transfer of shares, and sums up the controversial focus of the case.
The second part, analysis of non public Limited by Share Ltd effect statute limits the equity transfer clauses. From the logic of legislation as a starting point, this similarity is not a public Limited by Share Ltd with limited liability company. In a non public Limited by Share Ltd who combined with the articles of association of the contract interpretation of the statute of limitations on equity transfer effect.
The third part, the articles of association of the transfer of restricted shares boundaries. Allow the articles of association of the equity transfer restrictions, although the one hand can make the companyco from abuse, but on the other hand, the shareholder rights were infringed. Therefore, in order to make the interests of the company and the shareholders balance. Charter restrictions on stock rights should have reasonable boundary.
The fourth part, the effectiveness of the equity transfer agreement. Although the equity transfer agreement between the shareholder and the third party contract, but not the traditional real right equity or debt, equity should be the right of members with the person. So, the effectiveness of the equity transfer agreement should be combined with the specific situation of analysis.
The fifth part is the law and economics analysis of the limitation of stock transfer by statutes. The traditional analysis methods based on the theory of human nature or capital integration have their respective limitations. The analysis method of law and economics can explain the essence of stock rights transfer restricted by articles of association.
The sixth part, research conclusions and suggestions. Through the full text of the analysis to get a reasonable and feasible research conclusions, and put forward suggestions for the revision of the related issues.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何學(xué)智;;違反公司章程轉(zhuǎn)讓股權(quán)的合同之效力[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年17期

2 錢玉林;;公司章程對(duì)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓限制的效力[J];法學(xué);2012年10期

3 劉小勇;;論股份有限公司與有限責(zé)任公司的統(tǒng)合——日本及其他外國法關(guān)于公司類型的變革及啟示[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年02期

4 李后龍;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同效力認(rèn)定中的幾個(gè)疑難問題[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年11期

5 蔡元慶;;股份有限公司章程對(duì)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓的限制[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年03期

6 常州市中級(jí)人民法院民二庭課題組;;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓若干審判實(shí)務(wù)問題研究[J];人民司法;2008年23期

7 雷桂森;;公司章程越權(quán)條款研究——以強(qiáng)制股東轉(zhuǎn)讓股權(quán)條款為樣本[J];人民司法;2012年01期

8 湯欣;論公司法的性格——強(qiáng)行法抑或任意法?[J];中國法學(xué);2001年01期

9 羅培新;;公司法強(qiáng)制性與任意性邊界之厘定:一個(gè)法理分析框架[J];中國法學(xué);2007年04期

10 蔣學(xué)躍;;股份有限公司章程限制股份轉(zhuǎn)讓合理性探討[J];證券市場(chǎng)導(dǎo)報(bào);2011年04期

本文編號(hào)：1733704