董事守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-20 08:24
【摘要】：公司為了追求最大利益不惜鋌而走險,進入新世紀以來,各種丑聞頻發(fā)的狀況使得社會對于企業(yè)守法經(jīng)營的呼聲日漸高漲,而董事與公司之間的委任關(guān)系決定了董事負有使公司守法經(jīng)營的義務(wù)。董事的這一守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)不僅包括決策守法、監(jiān)督守法,還引伸出董事構(gòu)建守法體制這一新型義務(wù)。對于該義務(wù)的研究在我國仍屬新領(lǐng)域,學(xué)界涉及較少(研究角度也不同),相關(guān)立法空白較多(且大多為原則性規(guī)定,不具操作性),而國外對該義務(wù)的立法、司法實踐則較為豐富，本文旨在通過對美、日兩國案例和立法的梳理、對比和借鑒,結(jié)合我國實際情況,就該義務(wù)在我國公司法上的定位作進一步分析；在此基礎(chǔ)上,對履行該義務(wù)所須注意的事項以及由此帶來的責(zé)任追究問題做出探討。全文分為五章： 第一章作為緒論,主要闡述研究背景,提出問題；論述董事守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)內(nèi)涵的發(fā)展,界定本文所涉及的相關(guān)概念；就與本文有關(guān)的國內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀以及本文思路作綜合性概述。 第二章回顧了美國法上判例對董事守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)從否定到肯定的變革歷程,以及《聯(lián)邦組織犯罪量刑指南》所確立的守法程序機制(compliance programs)對公司治理的影響；詳細分析了日本公司法上的守法體制構(gòu)建義務(wù),以及該守法體制與“兩個內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)”和注意義務(wù)的關(guān)系。 第三章在前一章的基礎(chǔ)上,提出守法體制是內(nèi)部控制的基礎(chǔ)和保障,同時結(jié)合內(nèi)部控制在我國上市公司實際執(zhí)行不力的現(xiàn)實情況,指出其與相關(guān)法律法規(guī)欠缺銜接,因此應(yīng)將內(nèi)部控制中最基本的目標——守法經(jīng)營作為一項董事的義務(wù)規(guī)定在公司法中,以便在改善該情況的同時加強董事責(zé)任追究；本文還通過對我國法律環(huán)境的剖析,認為董事守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)成為第三種義務(wù)的可能性較大。 第四章就守法體制的構(gòu)建框架和判斷基準等要件作了規(guī)劃和闡述,詳細探討了在運行守法體制時應(yīng)當注意的三個問題(運行動力、信息披露、監(jiān)事監(jiān)督)。 第五章借案例分析指出在董事守法經(jīng)營義務(wù)背景下,董事的作為義務(wù)相較于過往,有擴大的趨勢：董事必須在決議時及時提出異議而不能棄權(quán)或者缺席會議,董事不能以“過錯相抵”為由來逃避自己所負有的改善組織體質(zhì)的義務(wù),董事在事發(fā)后必須積極公開實情而不是消極隱瞞；否則,一旦公司因董事的上述不作為而發(fā)生損害,董事就要承擔(dān)相應(yīng)后果,為自己的“不作為”承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:In order to pursue the best interests, companies do not hesitate to take risks. Since entering the new century, the frequent occurrence of various kinds of scandals has made society's calls for enterprises to abide by the law increasingly strong. The appointment relationship between the directors and the company determines that the directors have the obligation to make the company abide by the law. The director's duty to abide by the law not only includes law-abiding decision-making, supervision and law-abiding, but also extends the new obligation of directors to construct a law-abiding system. The research on this obligation is still a new field in our country, the academic circle involves less (the research angle is also different), the relevant legislation blank is many (and mostly is the principle stipulation, does not have the operation), but the foreign legislation to this duty, The judicial practice is more abundant, this paper aims to further analyze the position of this obligation in the company law of our country by combing the cases and legislation of the United States and Japan, comparing and drawing lessons from the actual situation of our country. This paper discusses the matters to be paid attention to in fulfilling this obligation and the problems of accountability arising therefrom. The full text is divided into five chapters: the first chapter as an introduction, mainly elaborated the research background, raised the question, discussed the director abiding by the law management duty connotation development, defined the related concept which this article involves; This paper gives a comprehensive overview of the domestic and foreign research situation and the train of thought of this paper. The second chapter reviews the history of the change from negation to affirmation of the directors' operating obligations in the legal precedents of the United States, and the influence of the law-abiding procedural mechanism, (compliance programs), on corporate governance, which was established in the guidelines on sentencing of Federal Organization crimes. This paper analyzes in detail the obligation to construct the law-abiding system in Japanese company law, and the relationship between the law-abiding system and the "two internal control systems" and the duty of care. On the basis of the previous chapter, the third chapter puts forward that the law-abiding system is the basis and guarantee of internal control, and at the same time, it points out that the internal control system is not in line with the relevant laws and regulations in the light of the fact that the internal control is not effectively implemented in China's listed companies. Therefore, the most basic objective of internal control, law-abiding management, should be stipulated in the company law as a duty of directors, in order to improve the situation and strengthen the accountability of directors. It is more likely that the director's duty to abide by the law becomes the third obligation. The fourth chapter makes a plan and elaboration on the construction frame and judgment standard of the law-abiding system, and discusses in detail the three problems (running power, information disclosure, supervisor supervision) that should be paid attention to in the operation of law-abiding system. Chapter V points out that under the background of directors' law-abiding operating obligations, there is a tendency to expand the directors' obligations as compared with the past: directors must raise objections at the time of the decision and cannot abstain from the meeting or be absent from the meeting. A director cannot evade his obligation to improve the constitution of the organization on the grounds of "fault offset". The director must actively disclose the facts after the incident rather than conceal them passively; otherwise, once the company is harmed by the director's above-mentioned omission, Directors should bear the corresponding consequences and assume liability for their own omission.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D922.291.91
本文編號：2282591
[Abstract]:In order to pursue the best interests, companies do not hesitate to take risks. Since entering the new century, the frequent occurrence of various kinds of scandals has made society's calls for enterprises to abide by the law increasingly strong. The appointment relationship between the directors and the company determines that the directors have the obligation to make the company abide by the law. The director's duty to abide by the law not only includes law-abiding decision-making, supervision and law-abiding, but also extends the new obligation of directors to construct a law-abiding system. The research on this obligation is still a new field in our country, the academic circle involves less (the research angle is also different), the relevant legislation blank is many (and mostly is the principle stipulation, does not have the operation), but the foreign legislation to this duty, The judicial practice is more abundant, this paper aims to further analyze the position of this obligation in the company law of our country by combing the cases and legislation of the United States and Japan, comparing and drawing lessons from the actual situation of our country. This paper discusses the matters to be paid attention to in fulfilling this obligation and the problems of accountability arising therefrom. The full text is divided into five chapters: the first chapter as an introduction, mainly elaborated the research background, raised the question, discussed the director abiding by the law management duty connotation development, defined the related concept which this article involves; This paper gives a comprehensive overview of the domestic and foreign research situation and the train of thought of this paper. The second chapter reviews the history of the change from negation to affirmation of the directors' operating obligations in the legal precedents of the United States, and the influence of the law-abiding procedural mechanism, (compliance programs), on corporate governance, which was established in the guidelines on sentencing of Federal Organization crimes. This paper analyzes in detail the obligation to construct the law-abiding system in Japanese company law, and the relationship between the law-abiding system and the "two internal control systems" and the duty of care. On the basis of the previous chapter, the third chapter puts forward that the law-abiding system is the basis and guarantee of internal control, and at the same time, it points out that the internal control system is not in line with the relevant laws and regulations in the light of the fact that the internal control is not effectively implemented in China's listed companies. Therefore, the most basic objective of internal control, law-abiding management, should be stipulated in the company law as a duty of directors, in order to improve the situation and strengthen the accountability of directors. It is more likely that the director's duty to abide by the law becomes the third obligation. The fourth chapter makes a plan and elaboration on the construction frame and judgment standard of the law-abiding system, and discusses in detail the three problems (running power, information disclosure, supervisor supervision) that should be paid attention to in the operation of law-abiding system. Chapter V points out that under the background of directors' law-abiding operating obligations, there is a tendency to expand the directors' obligations as compared with the past: directors must raise objections at the time of the decision and cannot abstain from the meeting or be absent from the meeting. A director cannot evade his obligation to improve the constitution of the organization on the grounds of "fault offset". The director must actively disclose the facts after the incident rather than conceal them passively; otherwise, once the company is harmed by the director's above-mentioned omission, Directors should bear the corresponding consequences and assume liability for their own omission.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D922.291.91
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條
1 任自力;;美國公司董事誠信義務(wù)研究[J];比較法研究;2007年02期
2 朱羿錕;彭心倩;;論董事誠信義務(wù)的法律地位[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年04期
3 韓燁;;對食品安全事件中董事?lián)p害賠償責(zé)任的探討[J];法制與社會;2009年31期
4 王靜;;新公司法中勤勉義務(wù)概念初探[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2007年01期
5 王保樹;朱慈蘊;;尋找商法學(xué)發(fā)展的足跡——關(guān)于2007年商法學(xué)研究的研究[J];中國法學(xué);2008年02期
6 朱羿錕;;論董事問責(zé)的誠信路徑[J];中國法學(xué);2008年03期
7 馬太廣;;論日本公司法理論上的董事責(zé)任行為及其啟示[J];政治與法律;2008年09期
，本文編號：2282591
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/gongsifalunwen/2282591.html
