本文選題：破產(chǎn)清算　切入點(diǎn)：股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓是股東行使股權(quán)經(jīng)常而普遍的方式,但是破產(chǎn)清算中股權(quán)自由轉(zhuǎn)讓的問題,我國新的破產(chǎn)法卻缺乏詳細(xì)規(guī)定。中旅集團(tuán)和華政公司股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同糾紛中,作為華夏證券的發(fā)起人股東,中旅集團(tuán)與華政公司在禁售期內(nèi)簽訂華夏證券股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同后不久華夏證券卻走上破產(chǎn)清算程序。就股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓,損失承擔(dān)問題,雙方展開了長(zhǎng)達(dá)六年的訴訟。案件的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)主要有以下三個(gè)方面:禁售期內(nèi)股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同的效力,破產(chǎn)清算程序下股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同能否實(shí)際履行,以及股權(quán)減值的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)由誰承擔(dān)的問題。重點(diǎn)分析在禁售期內(nèi)簽訂的禁售期后股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同是否違反法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同簽訂后股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓前企業(yè)進(jìn)入清算程序,合同履行是否遭遇實(shí)質(zhì)性的障礙;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓手續(xù)如何實(shí)際操作,破產(chǎn)管理人能否協(xié)助股東轉(zhuǎn)讓股權(quán)以及股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓過程中;股權(quán)減值的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)到底算情事變更還是商業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的問題。并得出如下結(jié)論:禁售期的股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓協(xié)議,只要沒有違反法律法規(guī)的效力性規(guī)定,就應(yīng)當(dāng)被認(rèn)定為有效;企業(yè)進(jìn)入破產(chǎn)清算程序,公司在法律上存在,股權(quán)就可以轉(zhuǎn)讓,破產(chǎn)管理人應(yīng)當(dāng)協(xié)助股東轉(zhuǎn)讓股權(quán);股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓中遭遇減值風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是典型的商業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而不是情事變更。但是由于立法的缺失使得案情復(fù)雜,歷時(shí)長(zhǎng)久并且出現(xiàn)了五個(gè)結(jié)果不同的判決,這極大的影響了司法的權(quán)威性和穩(wěn)定性。因此,需要通過完善立法來確定管理人的權(quán)利,細(xì)化破產(chǎn)管理人的職責(zé),通過司法解釋來出臺(tái)具體的實(shí)施細(xì)則,以期對(duì)破產(chǎn)清算程序下股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓問題的解決有所幫助。
[Abstract]:Equity transfer is a common and common way for shareholders to exercise their equity. However, the new bankruptcy law of our country lacks detailed provisions on the issue of free transfer of shares in bankruptcy liquidation. As the sponsor shareholder of Huaxia Securities, China Travel and Tourism Group and Huazheng Company signed the Huaxia Securities Equity transfer contract within the no-sale period, but soon after Huaxia Securities entered into the bankruptcy liquidation process, on the issue of equity transfer and loss bearing, The dispute focuses on the following three aspects: the validity of the equity transfer contract during the no-sale period, and whether the equity transfer contract can actually be fulfilled under the bankruptcy liquidation procedure, And the question of who should bear the risk of equity impairment. The emphasis is on whether the contract for the transfer of equity after the period of prohibition is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the law; after the signing of the contract of equity transfer, the enterprise enters the liquidation procedure before the transfer of shares, Whether there are substantial obstacles to the performance of the contract, how the procedure of equity transfer is actually operated, whether the bankruptcy administrator can assist the shareholders in the transfer of equity and the process of equity transfer; Whether the risk of equity impairment is a matter of change or commercial risk. The following conclusions are drawn: the agreement on the transfer of shares during the period of prohibition should be considered effective as long as it does not violate the effective provisions of laws and regulations; When an enterprise enters the bankruptcy liquidation procedure, if the company exists legally, the equity can be transferred, and the bankruptcy administrator shall assist the shareholders to transfer the equity; The risk of impairment in the transfer of shares is a typical commercial risk rather than a change of circumstances. However, due to the lack of legislation, the case is complicated, lasting for a long time and resulting in five judgements with different results. This has greatly affected the authority and stability of the administration of justice. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the rights of the administrator through improving legislation, to refine the duties of the insolvency administrator, and to issue specific implementation rules through judicial interpretation. With a view to bankruptcy liquidation procedures under the equity transfer of the solution to help.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 于文萍;;對(duì)于新《破產(chǎn)法》的幾點(diǎn)商榷[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年03期

2 張耕;質(zhì)疑無效合同性質(zhì)的絕對(duì)化[J];法學(xué);2005年05期

3 王利明;關(guān)于無效合同確認(rèn)的若干問題[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年05期

4 韓長(zhǎng)印;破產(chǎn)理念的立法演變與破產(chǎn)程序的驅(qū)動(dòng)機(jī)制[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

5 張慶東;情事變更與商業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律界定[J];法學(xué);1994年08期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王東光;股東退出法律制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 顧海燕;破產(chǎn)清算中管理人職權(quán)問題研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2013年

2 黃澤雁;破產(chǎn)管理人的職權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1591068