本文選題：股東權(quán)利 + 關(guān)聯(lián)交易��； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：關(guān)聯(lián)交易作為一種正當(dāng)?shù)慕灰追绞?它是實(shí)現(xiàn)降低談判成本、減少交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、實(shí)現(xiàn)利益均衡的一個(gè)有效途徑。但是,如果出現(xiàn)非公允化傾向,關(guān)聯(lián)交易就會(huì)產(chǎn)生極其負(fù)面的效果。它不僅會(huì)導(dǎo)致相互獨(dú)立的主體之間的雙方交易演變成控制者之自我交易,還會(huì)導(dǎo)致全體股東包括小股東一起做出交易之決定受控于少數(shù)股東。在這些負(fù)面效果中,廣大小股東則由于其弱勢的地位和不足的維權(quán)意識,在這些控股股東放肆的行為中陷入了有權(quán)無法行使、有利不能追求、有苦不能傾訴的局面。 小股東權(quán)利是指小股東作為公司股東所應(yīng)該享有的正當(dāng)利益。這種對于正當(dāng)利益的追求客觀上促成了公司的產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展與壯大。從整體上來說,一個(gè)公司的存在既離不開大股東的主導(dǎo),也離不開小股東的參與。大股東主導(dǎo)制定經(jīng)營策略,小股東為其積極吶喊,這本身就是一個(gè)極其和諧的安排。然而在現(xiàn)實(shí)中卻并非如此,盡管股東權(quán)利股東平等享有,但對于大股東和小股東而言,股權(quán)行使的程度和遭受侵犯時(shí)的救濟(jì)狀況卻有著截然的差別。對于大股東而言,他們對于公司的事務(wù)有著基本決策與導(dǎo)向的權(quán)利,所以在公司中,他們的權(quán)利相對于與小股東而言遭受的侵犯極其少見。但是對于小股東而言,其權(quán)利遭受公司大股東的侵犯的狀況有愈發(fā)頻繁之勢。 小股東權(quán)利保護(hù)的內(nèi)涵就是國家、政府和法律不僅要從形式上為小股東加入公司和退出公司提供制度上的自由和便利,更要從實(shí)質(zhì)上通過完善公司內(nèi)部治理和外部治理,確保其在作為股東的期間權(quán)利能夠充分實(shí)現(xiàn),在其權(quán)利被侵犯的時(shí)候能夠得到充分的彌補(bǔ)。前者是權(quán)利保護(hù)形式意義上的內(nèi)容,后者則是權(quán)利保護(hù)實(shí)質(zhì)意義上體現(xiàn)。在公司發(fā)展的初期,形式意義上的權(quán)利保護(hù)是很重要的,當(dāng)今公司股東的加入與退出機(jī)制也是形成于那個(gè)時(shí)期。但是隨著社會(huì)進(jìn)一步發(fā)展,到今天形式意義上的股權(quán)保護(hù)已經(jīng)不能滿足實(shí)踐的需要,人們的眼光跟多地放在了其實(shí)質(zhì)意義之上。 我國的關(guān)于小股東權(quán)利保護(hù)的規(guī)定對于我國小股東權(quán)利保護(hù)起著很大的作用。但是,一方面我國《公司法》的出臺相對于歐美國家來說較晚,許多規(guī)定都是照搬照抄的,其并不完全適合我國的公司內(nèi)部治理現(xiàn)狀,另一方面這些規(guī)定在我國公司治理中的實(shí)踐執(zhí)行也有很大的不足,這其中比如：股東誠信義務(wù)的規(guī)范對象過于泛化；累積投票制度亟待修正；表決權(quán)制度也有待重新架構(gòu)等等。優(yōu)化公司之內(nèi)部治理制度,通過在公司治理中不斷引入和借鑒各種優(yōu)秀的治理模式,采納各種行之有效的規(guī)則是對小股東進(jìn)行保護(hù)的核心的途徑。
[Abstract]:As a proper way of transaction, affiliated transaction is an effective way to reduce negotiation cost, reduce transaction risk and achieve balance of interests. However, if there is an unfair tendency, related party transactions will have extremely negative effects. It not only leads to the development of the transaction between independent subjects into the self-dealing of the controller, but also leads to the decision of all shareholders, including minority shareholders, to make the transaction together under the control of minority shareholders. In these negative effects, the majority of minority shareholders because of their weak position and lack of awareness of rights, in these unbridled behavior of the controlling shareholders into the exercise of the right to not be able to pursue, there are difficulties can not be confided in the situation. The rights of minority shareholders refer to the legitimate interests that minority shareholders should enjoy as shareholders of the company. This pursuit of legitimate interests objectively contributed to the emergence, development and growth of the company. On the whole, the existence of a company can not be separated from the leading of major shareholders, but also from the participation of minority shareholders. It is an extremely harmonious arrangement for the major shareholders to make the management strategy and the minority shareholders to shout for it. However, this is not the case in reality. Although shareholders enjoy equal rights, there are diametrical differences between large shareholders and minority shareholders in terms of the degree of equity exercise and the relief situation when they are infringed. For large shareholders, they have the basic right to make decisions and guide the affairs of the company, so in the company, the infringement of their rights is extremely rare compared with that of the minority shareholders. But for minority shareholders, their rights are infringed by large shareholders more and more frequently. The connotation of the protection of minority shareholders' rights is the country. The government and law should not only provide the freedom and convenience in system for minority shareholders to join and withdraw from the company in form, but also improve the internal and external governance of the company in essence. To ensure that their rights are fully realized during their time as shareholders and fully compensated when their rights are violated. The former is the content in the form of the protection of rights, while the latter is embodied in the essence of the protection of rights. In the early stage of the development of the company, the formal protection of rights is very important, and the mechanism of joining and withdrawing the shareholders is also formed in that period. However, with the further development of the society, the formal protection of equity has not been able to meet the needs of practice. The provisions on the protection of minority shareholders' rights in China play a great role in protecting the rights of minority shareholders. However, on the one hand, the introduction of the Company Law in our country is relatively late compared with the European and American countries, and many provisions are copied, which is not completely suitable for the present situation of the internal governance of the company in our country. On the other hand, the implementation of these provisions in the practice of corporate governance in our country also has a lot of deficiencies, such as: the normative object of shareholders' good faith obligation is too broad; the cumulative voting system needs to be amended urgently; the voting system also needs to be re-structured and so on. The core way to protect minority shareholders is to optimize the internal governance system of the company, introduce and use for reference various excellent governance models in the corporate governance, and adopt various effective rules.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李靜;論我國股東派生訴訟制度的構(gòu)建[J];安陽師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

2 何艷;張芬;;發(fā)達(dá)國家如何保護(hù)小股東利益?——論兩種公司治理模式下小股東保護(hù)體系[J];北方經(jīng)濟(jì);2007年02期

3 周新玲;上市公司非公允關(guān)聯(lián)交易治理研究[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2004年06期

4 陳永峰;對我國股東派生訴訟制度若干問題的探討[J];河南財(cái)政稅務(wù)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

5 胡曉靜;;德國股東派生訴訟制度評析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年02期

6 蔣大興;董事離任義務(wù)立法規(guī)制研究——兼論我國《公司法》之修改[J];法學(xué)評論;2001年05期

7 李高中;論關(guān)聯(lián)交易與我國公司法完善[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1998年01期

8 范健;公司法與現(xiàn)代企業(yè)制度[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);1994年08期

9 張民安;派生訴訟研究[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;1998年06期

10 嚴(yán)剛;股東代表訴訟的限制研究[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2003年06期

，

本文編號：1784804