關 鍵 詞: |
閉鎖性股份有限公司;股東人數上限;私人公司;有限公司 |
中文摘要: |
二○一五年的公司法修正創造了一種新的公司類型,亦即閉鎖性股份有限公司。主管機關強調此一立法係以英國、香港、新加坡的私人公司與美國封閉型公司制度。因此,公司法第 356 條之 1 將閉鎖性股份有限公司定義為「股東人數不超過五十人,並於章程訂有股份轉讓限制之非公開發行股票公司」。然而,我國新設的閉鎖性股份有限公司,不管在立法目的與規定內容上,都與這些國家的制度有異。就此觀之,為何須移植該等國家之規定來定義我國的閉鎖性股份有限公司,並設下股東人數的上限,值得探討。 鑑於上述定義及股東人數限制係以比較法為其依據,本文嘗試對外國法制提供完整的說明,並主張我國公司法就閉鎖性股份有限公司之定義的法律移植並非合理。我們解釋了私人公司與封閉型公司在不同國家興起的原因與狀況,以了解股東人數上限存在的背景。之後則探討我國二○一五年公司法修法的發展。兩相比較之下,顯而易見的是,不管在公司法立法的法制淵源、歷史發展以及尤為重要的立法目的來看,我國都與這些國家迥不相同。從二○一五年修法的目標與精神來看,我們認為此一股東人數上限之限制應加以刪除。
|
英文關鍵詞: |
Close Company;Limitation of the Number of Shareholders;Private Company;Limited Company |
英文摘要: |
The 2015 Amendment to Taiwan Company Law creates a new category of company, or “close company.” The competent authority stresses that this legal creation is modeled on the close corporation regime in the United States and the private company regimes in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore. As a result, a close company is defined in Article 356-1 of Taiwan Company Law as a non-public company which has no more than fifty shareholders and whose certificate of incorporation shall include a provision of restriction on share transfer. However, both the legislative purpose and the rules of the newly-enacted close company regime in Taiwan are quite different from those of the foreign regimes. In this light, the reasons why Taiwan copies the foreign rules to define its own close company and to set the upper limit on the number of shareholders are worth exploring. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the foreign regimes and argues that the legal transplantation of the definition of close company is anachronistic, to say the least. We explain the arising of private company and close corporation in different regimes to understand the backdrop against which the rule of the limit on the number of shareholders was put in place. We also explore the legislative development in Taiwan’s 2015 Amendment. It is clear that Taiwan shares little in common with these countries in terms of the legal origin, the historical development, and, most important of all, legislative purpose of such company legislations. We suggest that, in order to fully reflect the spirit of the 2015 Amendment, the upper limit on the number of the shareholders be removed.
|
目 次: |
壹、前言 貳、英國法系下的 Private Company 制度 一、立法背景 (一)十九世紀公司法制發展與小規模公司之興起 (二)一九○○年公司法-強化公司資訊揭露義務之立法趨勢 (三)一九○七年 Private Company 制度立法背景 二、對應方式:Private Company 定義與制度特色 (一)一九○七年公司法立法過程 (二)Private Company 定義之立法討論 (三)Private Company 定義與規範特色 (四)立法評析 三、後續發展 (一)Private Company 制度演進 (二)一九八○年公司法 Private Company 股東人數限制規定之廢除 四、香港與新加坡 Private Company 制度 (一)香港 (二)新加坡 五、小結 參、美國 Close Corporation 制度 一、立法背景 (一)十九世紀後期大型企業之崛起與影響 (二)十九世紀末至二十世紀初之公司法發展方向變相壓迫小公司需求 (三)Close Corporation 之立法改革 二、對應方式:Close Corporation 之定義與制度特色 (一)立法模式 (二)Close Corporation 之定義 (三)股東人數上限規定之立法考量與評析 (四)制度特色 三、Close Corporation 制度後續發展 四、小結 肆、我國閉鎖性股份有限公司立法的倡議與實踐 伍、結論
|
相關法條: |
|
相關判解: |
|
相關函釋: |
|
相關論著: |
|