本文關(guān)鍵詞：對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與防范問題研究　出處：《中央民族大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 對(duì)賭協(xié)議 “PE 對(duì)賭第一案” 法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn) 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范

【摘要】：“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”某種意義上講是企業(yè)估值與投融資方持股比例的一種“博弈”,是期權(quán)的一種形式,雙方本著意思自治的原則針對(duì)未來的情況設(shè)計(jì)出的一種激勵(lì)融資方增長的“最優(yōu)契約”。是一把保護(hù)投資方投資安全的保護(hù)傘,是消除不確定性成本和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的重要制衡調(diào)整器。2012年底,最高人民法院終審判決了海富投資和甘肅世恒的“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”糾紛案,該起案件是我國對(duì)賭第一大案。判決之后,仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)、各級(jí)人民法院都紛紛對(duì)案件糾紛提出了爭議與意見,并且這些看法廣泛地出現(xiàn)在了各大媒體中。對(duì)賭協(xié)議第一案最終的審理幾經(jīng)波折,先后經(jīng)過蘭州中院、甘肅高院直至最后到最高院才畫上了一個(gè)句號(hào),該案件也引起了業(yè)界強(qiáng)烈反響。但是,在各級(jí)法院中,有關(guān)對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力與性質(zhì)從認(rèn)定上是不盡相同的,這就讓對(duì)賭協(xié)議的身份變得撲朔迷離。部分企業(yè)簽訂了“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”,最后對(duì)賭成功獲取很大的利益,不過,也有部分企業(yè)因?yàn)槭《墒芰司薮髶p失。對(duì)賭假如實(shí)現(xiàn)既定的目標(biāo)的話,那么投融資雙方能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)共贏的局面,如果目標(biāo)未能實(shí)現(xiàn)全部都要蒙受損失。在我國,簽訂“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”具有法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn),分析了各種效力因素對(duì)對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律效力的影響,明晰“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”在國內(nèi)實(shí)踐中遇到的種種障礙。最后提出建議,在簽訂“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”時(shí)簽訂“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”后,合理規(guī)避對(duì)賭協(xié)議帶來的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。本文一共分為四部分：第一部分,本文通過對(duì)對(duì)賭協(xié)議概念界定、產(chǎn)生背景的詳細(xì)剖析,分析“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”的主要內(nèi)容,同時(shí),總結(jié)分析對(duì)賭協(xié)在法律方面存在的價(jià)值,為本文論述展開奠定了基礎(chǔ)。第二部分,通過對(duì)“中國對(duì)賭第一案”的案情與判決分析對(duì)賭協(xié)議于國內(nèi)的現(xiàn)狀,從而引出下文對(duì)賭協(xié)議與國內(nèi)現(xiàn)行法律,尤其是公司法的具體沖突,為下文具體分析對(duì)賭協(xié)議存在的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)奠定基礎(chǔ)。并且分析了最高法院判決的判例意義與啟示。第三部分,具體分析對(duì)賭協(xié)議在國內(nèi)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn),分析了各種效力因素對(duì)對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律效力的影響,明晰“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”在國內(nèi)實(shí)踐中遇到的種種障礙。第四部分,為避免對(duì)賭協(xié)議因“水土不服”而陷入法律陷阱和漏洞,提出建議,在簽訂“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”時(shí)簽訂“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”后,合理規(guī)避對(duì)賭協(xié)議帶來的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
[Abstract]:The "agreement on gambling" in a sense is a kind of "game" of enterprise valuation and investment financing proportion, is a form of options, both based on the principle of autonomy for the future design of a kind of incentive financing growth "optimal contract." is an umbrella to protect investment investment security, is to eliminate the uncertainty of cost and risk of important balance regulator.2012 the end of the year, the Supreme People's Court of Final Appeal ruling the Admiralty investment and Gansu Heng "agreement on gambling dispute case, the case is China's first case of gambling. After the verdict, the arbitration institution, the people's courts at all levels have to the dispute of the case put forward disputes and opinions, and these views widely appeared in the major media. The first agreement on gambling case final hearing twists and turns, after the Lanzhou intermediate people's court, the Supreme Court of Gansu until the end to the highest Can draw a full stop, the case has aroused strong repercussions. However, in the courts, the legal effect of the agreement on gambling and nature from that is not the same, which makes the agreement on gambling identity becomes part of the enterprise. Whirling signed the "agreement on gambling. Finally get great benefits to succeed but there are some enterprises because of the failure to suffer huge losses. If the bet to achieve the established objectives. Then, investment and financing both sides to achieve a win-win situation, if the target failed to achieve all losses. In our country, has signed the" legal risk of gambling the agreement ", analyzes the effectiveness of various factors on the legal effect of the agreement on gambling," to clear the obstacles encountered in the gambling agreement in practice. Finally, after signing the agreement on gambling signed an agreement on gambling ", to avoid legal risks brought to the gambling agreement is reasonable. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part, through the definition of the agreement on gambling concept, a detailed analysis of the background, analysis of the gambling agreement" of the main content, at the same time, the analysis of gambling Co exists in the legal aspects of the value laid this paper discusses the basis for the second part, through the case analysis and judgment of "Chinese bet on" the first case of the gambling agreement in the domestic situation, which leads to the following agreement on gambling and the current domestic law, especially the specific conflict of company law, lay the foundation for the specific risk analysis below valuationadjustment mechanism. The case analysis and the significance and implications of the Supreme Court. In the third part, the specific analysis of the gambling agreement in the domestic legal risk, analyzes the effectiveness of various factors on the legal effect of the agreement on gambling, "to clear All sorts of obstacles encountered in the domestic gambling agreement in practice. The fourth part, recommendations for avoiding the agreement on gambling because of a legal trap and The climate does not suit one. "loophole, signed the" agreement on gambling, in the "sign" agreement on gambling ", to avoid legal risk brought to the gambling agreement is reasonable.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊克明;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議:外資投行投資中國企業(yè)的新證券工具[J];長江論壇;2007年06期

2 張虹;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議規(guī)范的理性選擇:載舟式的策略[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2011年01期

3 姚澤力;;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”理論基礎(chǔ)探析[J];理論界;2011年08期

4 李金華;;我國企業(yè)簽訂對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年09期

5 李健;;對(duì)我國企業(yè)簽訂對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律建議[J];新聞世界;2011年09期

6 劉志云;;警惕將“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”妖魔化[J];中國審判;2012年12期

7 華梅;;如何避免對(duì)賭協(xié)議無效——以法律實(shí)務(wù)為視角[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年07期

8 王振;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議性質(zhì)和效力的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析[J];哈爾濱師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

9 王振;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律性質(zhì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析及其效力剖析[J];甘肅金融;2013年05期

10 楊宏芹;張岑;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律性質(zhì)和效力研究——以“海富投資案”為視角[J];江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 楊占武;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律問題[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)論文集[C];2009年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 屈麗麗;別讓“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”忽悠了自己[N];中國經(jīng)營報(bào);2008年

2 范媛;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”：帶刺的玫瑰[N];中國經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2011年

3 潘紹俊;當(dāng)融資遇上對(duì)賭協(xié)議 是美酒還是毒藥？[N];東莞日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

4 本報(bào)記者 范媛;對(duì)賭協(xié)議：誰贏誰輸？[N];中國經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2012年

5 本報(bào)記者 許浩;最高法提審 “對(duì)賭協(xié)議”合法性待“判決”[N];中國經(jīng)營報(bào);2012年

6 段愛群;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的兩種模式[N];中國會(huì)計(jì)報(bào);2013年

7 浙江采悠園林公司董事長 凌俊杰;對(duì)賭協(xié)議詳解[N];中國花卉報(bào);2014年

8 陳明鍵;讓“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”成為雙贏游戲[N];中國高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2006年

9 劉曉忠;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”能載舟亦能覆舟[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2006年

10 金融街PE;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及其防范[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 昝凌霄;對(duì)賭協(xié)議問題研究[D];河北大學(xué);2014年

2 李露露;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力及實(shí)踐運(yùn)用研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2013年

3 司潔陳;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資中對(duì)賭協(xié)議的研究[D];貴州財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2014年

4 王曉敏;論對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

5 高浩翔;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律性質(zhì)及效力研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2015年

6 應(yīng)娟;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的效力認(rèn)定研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

7 焦珊珊;論“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”的法律效力與法律價(jià)值[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

8 王建宇;探究對(duì)賭協(xié)議的稅收處理[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

9 戚文雯;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”法律問題研究[D];貴州民族大學(xué);2015年

10 林淵;私募股權(quán)中的對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律問題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1371141