本文關(guān)鍵詞：“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”法律效力問(wèn)題分析與制度建構(gòu)　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2017年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 對(duì)賭協(xié)議估值調(diào)整機(jī)制 法律效力

【摘要】：最高法院的蘇州海富公司案例與國(guó)際仲裁委員會(huì)案例對(duì)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律效力不同的裁判結(jié)果引發(fā)業(yè)界眾多的爭(zhēng)議,本文擬對(duì)對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力問(wèn)題與相關(guān)其他問(wèn)題做探討與研究,以期解決實(shí)踐中“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”引起的法律適用問(wèn)題。本文從私募股權(quán)投資與對(duì)賭協(xié)議的基本概念入手,首先介紹私募股權(quán)投資的四類參與主體,分析了私募股權(quán)投資具有非公開(kāi)募集、股權(quán)投資、投資的退出方式的三個(gè)特點(diǎn)。接著介紹了對(duì)賭協(xié)議的來(lái)源與定義,根據(jù)對(duì)賭協(xié)議不同的特點(diǎn)將劃分為不同的類型,并分析了融資需要與契約自由結(jié)合才產(chǎn)生了對(duì)賭協(xié)議,并對(duì)對(duì)賭協(xié)議的價(jià)值逐一分析,對(duì)于目前對(duì)賭協(xié)議的相關(guān)理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行歸納與分析,用實(shí)證分析方法分析了我國(guó)關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議的經(jīng)典案例的特點(diǎn)與法律適用,重點(diǎn)分析了對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律關(guān)系。本文也分析了英美不會(huì)產(chǎn)生對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律效力問(wèn)題的原因,一、英美法中合同法不存在效力問(wèn)題概念,只要有邀約、承諾、對(duì)價(jià)、不違反公共利益,合同即成立。二、英美法的證券法公司法制度允許可轉(zhuǎn)換優(yōu)先股,可以優(yōu)先分分紅等,不違反法律規(guī)定,而中國(guó)沒(méi)有這樣的制度,才導(dǎo)致違反公司法而無(wú)效。三、英美法國(guó)家投資者大多數(shù)為機(jī)構(gòu)投資者,具有專業(yè)律師對(duì)相關(guān)法律深入研究,不會(huì)使用這樣明顯違反法律的條款。通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議效力問(wèn)題對(duì)立觀點(diǎn)的分析,歸納出通說(shuō)認(rèn)為投資者與融資方之間的對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力是有效的,但是關(guān)于投資者與融資標(biāo)的公司之間的對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力,存在有效說(shuō)與無(wú)效說(shuō)兩種觀點(diǎn)。本文對(duì)于投資者與融資方之間的對(duì)賭協(xié)議進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)歸納,并用實(shí)證分析的方法對(duì)投資者與目標(biāo)公司之間對(duì)賭合同分別持有效與無(wú)效兩方的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行全面梳理與詳細(xì)分析,指出各自理論存在的問(wèn)題。目前各種分析均是拘泥于傳統(tǒng)法學(xué)的觀點(diǎn)而得出的結(jié)論,闡明對(duì)法律效力出現(xiàn)爭(zhēng)議的根本原因是市場(chǎng)失靈、與合同法公司法等法律法規(guī)失靈的結(jié)果,是因?yàn)槲覈?guó)法律規(guī)定的局限性,不能適用市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)變化的需要,面對(duì)市場(chǎng)失靈,應(yīng)當(dāng)發(fā)揮經(jīng)濟(jì)法的調(diào)整作用,提出用經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)理念與基本原則重新審視對(duì)賭協(xié)議的效力問(wèn)題。投資人與融資標(biāo)的公司對(duì)賭本身不具有必然的違法性,并不必然損害公司其他股東的利益,并不必然會(huì)損害公司其他股東的利益。只有在融資標(biāo)的公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任后侵害其他債權(quán)人利益,與其他小股東利益才會(huì)導(dǎo)致無(wú)效。用經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)的適度干預(yù)原則和社會(huì)本位原則作為審查對(duì)賭協(xié)議法律效力問(wèn)題的原則,針對(duì)目前我國(guó)公司法、證券法的不足之處用經(jīng)濟(jì)法的基本理論提出了修改的觀點(diǎn),建議從行政監(jiān)管、立法規(guī)制、和司法理念三方面對(duì)有關(guān)對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行制度建構(gòu)。
[Abstract]:The Supreme Court of Suzhou Haifu Company Committee case and international arbitration cases for the agreement on gambling legal effect of different judgment results sparked many disputes, this paper on the legal effect of the agreement on gambling problems and other related issues for discussion and research, in order to solve the problem of application of law in the practice of "agreement on gambling". Starting from the basic concepts of private equity investment and gambling agreement, this paper first introduces four types of participants in private equity investment, and analyzes three characteristics of private equity investment, including the ways of private offering, equity investment and investment exit. Then it introduces the origin and definition of the gambling agreement, according to the different characteristics of the agreement on gambling will be divided into different types, and analyzes the financing needs and the freedom of contract is the result of the combination of the gambling agreement and the agreement on gambling value analysis, the agreement on gambling related theory and summarized the analysis method, analysis of China's a classic case of VAM characteristics and the application of the law by empirical analysis, it focuses on the legal relationship of the gambling agreement. This paper also analyzes the reasons why the Anglo American Agreement does not produce the validity of the gambling agreement. First, the concept of the contract law does not exist in the Anglo American law. If there is an invitation, a commitment, a consideration, or a violation of the public interest, the contract is established. Two, Anglo American Law of the securities law, the company's legal system allows convertible preferred stock, dividends can be prioritize and so on, does not violate the law, but China has no such system, which can lead to violation of the company law and invalid. Three, most investors in Anglo American law are institutional investors, and have professional lawyers to conduct in-depth studies on related laws, so they will not use such a clear violation of the provisions of the law. Based on the analysis on the effectiveness of opposing views on the gambling agreement concluded at home, said that between investors and financiers of the legal effect of the agreement on gambling is effective, but on the subject of the company between the investors and the financing of the gambling agreement legal effect, effective said two views and invalid. In this paper, for between investors and financiers of the agreement on gambling were summarized, and with the empirical analysis for a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the contract between the investors and the Target Corp of gambling are holding valid and invalid two party views, points out their theoretical problems. At present all kinds of analysis are all adhere to the traditional view of law and the conclusion of legal effect causes controversy is market failure, failure of company law and contract law and other laws and regulations of the results, because of the limitations of the law of our country, need not apply to market changes, in the face of market failure, adjustment the economic law should play a role, put forward with the concept of economic law and the basic principles of re examining the effectiveness of the agreement on gambling problems. Investors and financing companies do not necessarily have illegality against gambling, and do not necessarily damage the interests of other shareholders. They will not necessarily damage other shareholders' interests. The interests of other creditors should be violated only after the company is responsible for the financing, and the interests of other small shareholders will be ineffective. With the principle of moderate intervention principle and the social standard of the economic law as a review of the effectiveness of the principle of legal gambling agreement, aiming at the shortcomings of company law and securities law of our country by using the basic theory of economic law puts forward views, suggestions on system construction of the relevant legal provisions of the gambling agreement from the administrative supervision, legislative regulation three aspects, and the judicial philosophy.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王賀;;誠(chéng)實(shí)信用——破解“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”困惑之道[J];證券法苑;2012年02期

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

3 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

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

5 李金華;;我國(guó)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

6 李健;;對(duì)我國(guó)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

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

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

9 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

10 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

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(wèn)題[A];2009中華全國(guó)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(guó)經(jīng)營(yíng)報(bào);2008年

2 范媛;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”：帶刺的玫瑰[N];中國(guó)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(shuí)贏誰(shuí)輸？[N];中國(guó)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(guó)經(jīng)營(yíng)報(bào);2012年

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

7 浙江采悠園林公司董事長(zhǎng) 凌俊杰;對(duì)賭協(xié)議詳解[N];中國(guó)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(guó)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(guó)財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉子亞;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資、企業(yè)控制權(quán)和企業(yè)績(jī)效[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

2 陳朝毅;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”法律效力問(wèn)題分析與制度建構(gòu)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2017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(wèn)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(guó)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(guó)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(wèn)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(wèn)題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1338017