【作者】 肖琳；

【导师】 李新天；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 股份回购制度现已成为国外上市公司广泛采用的一种公司策略，随着我国市场经济的发展，出现了申能股份、冰箱压缩和云天化等国有股回购案，而我国现行《公司法》没有规定，由于股份回购的内在缺陷可能被作为公司控股股东、董事谋求个人私利的工具，从而损害公司、中小股东以及债权人的利益，本文对这一制度进行比较系统的研究，以求对我国股份回购方面的立法有所启示和助益，使这一制度在我国公司实践中发挥其应有的作用。 本文除引言外分为六章 第一章首先探讨股份回购的涵义，并着重分析此处股份的涵义，通过分析认为此处的股份的涵义不仅指股份有限公司的股份，而且也包括有限责任公司的出资额(或持份)。其次，从法理上和法政策上分析了股份回购禁止的理由，从法理上看，公司是一个具有独立人格的社团法人，公司的法人属性使公司与其股东独立开来，如果公司取得并持有自身股份会导致公司与股东人格混同，造成逻辑混乱。从法政策上看，公司取得自己股份也产生危害资本维持原则，损害股东平等原则，危害支配的公正性，危害交易的公平性等弊害。故各国早期公司法中都禁止公司取得自己股份。最后，从法理上和公司的实践中分析股份回购缓和的理由。从法理上看，公司为典型的营利性社团法人，肯定其与自然人同样享有财产权的权利能力，而其股份是具有财产性和高度流转性的有价证券，自己的股份与他人的股份应等量齐观。因此作为经营主体的公司可以从证券市场上购入任何类型的股份，当然也包括自己发行在外的股份。从公司实践上看，股份回购是公司实施反收购策略的有利武器，可以稳定或提高公司股价，有利于建立员工持股制度和股票期权制度，有利于形成公司和股东的“双赢”局面。通过分析，股份回购既有其固有弊端，同时也有许多有利的方面。因此各国的公司立法也从禁止走向缓和，在扩大股份回购的例外情况的同时，更注重采用其它限制手段，以尽可能地减少其弊端的发生，从而为公司的经营创造良好的环境。 第二章是对世界上股份回购立法例的两种模式的比较分析。一是德国模式，它以德、法两国为代表，并为多数欧洲国家、日本、韩国、我国台湾地区等公司法中所采用。这些国家和地区原则禁止股份回购，仅在个别例外情况下，始允许公司有条件地获取自己股份，同时也对取得自己股份的行为作出种种限制。本文例举了德国立法例，日本立法例，法国立法例，英国立法例，欧盟立法例，台湾地区立法例。二是美国模式，与德国模式不同，美国采取的是“原则上允许并附加限制条件”的独特模式。美国模式有一个不断演化的过程，其早期判例对自己股份取得所持的态度并不完全一致，甚至于1 890年，若干州还几乎否认或大为限制公司买回自己股份的权利，但进入20世纪后，出于刺激经济和便利公司财政的需要，越来越多的判例开始允许公司购买自己的股份，并认为只要公司有支付能力，其购买自己股份的行为就不构成对债权人利益的忽视和侵害，故其取得行为并无不当。现在，美国法认为公司取得自己股份等于将付出的对价金额支付给原股东，从而减少了公司实际拥有的价值，取得这些股份同原来只核准发行但没有实际发行的股份并没有什么区别，且这些股份也不再是该发行公司资产的一部分，因此修改后的美国标准公司法将公司重新取得股份界定为一种分配方式。如果公司均按一定比例收购每位股东的股份，其结果等于进行一次股息分配，如果不照比例进行收购，那么公司中没有被收购的那些股份其每股所表示的股权重获得增殖。正是由于观念的更新，美国不再禁止公司取得自己股份。三是两种立法模式的比较，德国模式注重公司资本的维持和债权人的保护，然而过于严格的限制也会给公司的经营运作带来不便。因此，随着社会经济的发展，采用此模式的国家开始逐步放开其限制，不断扩大例外适用的范围。而美国模式因其具有较大的灵活性而在一定程度上适应和满足了公司自由经营的需要，但对债权人的保护及交易的维护则显得不足，其在美国可行，与其发达的判例法和成熟的证券立法不无关系。因此，两种模式各有利弊，一国究采何种立法体例，在很大程度上，取决于其特定的政治、经济、历史和法律文化条件。 第三章是从我国的实践出发，对我国股份回购立法的检讨和完善。从我国立法规定可以看出，目前我国采取的是德国模式，这与当前我国国情是适应的。从我国的现状来看，公司制度尚处于初创阶段，且不存在成熟的证券市场和交易制度，大部分证券交易在很大程度上具有盲目性和投机性，公司股本被不合理抽出的情况也时有发生，因此，在公司制度建立初期，只能走从严到宽的道路，必须严格限定股份回购的适用范围。但是与采用德国模式的其他国家相比， II我国目前关于股份回购的立法极其简单、粗糙。一方面对允许的股份回购例外情形的规定明显过于狭窄;另一方面对回购的限制手段过于单一。处理结果过于简单。我国现行立法仅对回购的适用范围作出限制，但对取得资金来源、数量、价格及程序均缺乏规定，其更多还原

【Abstract】 Share buy-back system become foreign one Company tactics that listed company adopt extensively already now, with the development of market economy of our country, appear Shenneng Stocks Trading Co., refrigerator compress and sky personwho take state-owned stock buy-back case, and our country’s current" company law "Stipulate because share inherent defect of buy-back might regard as company holdingshareholder , director seek personal tool of private interests, thus it damage company, in interests of minority stock holder and creditor,compare. This system systematic research of this text, in order to enlighten and benefit to of our country share buy-back legislation of to some extent, make this system play its due role in our country’s company’s practice! This text divide into sixChapter one probe into share meaning of buy-back at first besides foreword, analyse here meaning of share emphatically, through is it think meaning of share of here not merely refer to the shares of the Limited Company to analyse, and too including investment volume (hold one ) of limited company. Secondly , have analysed the reason forbidden in buy-back of shares from the legal principle is had , looking from legal principle, the company is a juridical association with independent personality , legal person attribute of company make company and its shareholder come independently, if company obtain and hold one’s own share not to can lead to the fact Company and shareholder’s personality to confuse, cause logic to be confused, watch from law policy, company obtain one’s own share is it endanger capital keep the principle to produce too, damage shareholder’s equal principle, endanger the fairness controlled , endanger the harm , such as fairness of the trade ,etc, so forbidthe company to obtain one’s own share in early company laws of various countries. Go to from legal principle finally and practice of company analyse share reason that buy-back relaxes , looking from legal principle, the company is the typical profit-generating juridical association, affirm that it enjoys the right ability of the proprietary as natural person, and its share is the marketable securities with property nature and height circulation, one’s own share and others’ share should be regarded as equal. So as manage company of subject can buy share of type any from securitymarket, including oneself issue share outside too certainly, share buy-back whether company is it purchase to favourable weapons tactics instead to implement from company practice, can stabilize or raise company’s stock price , have Set up staff hold share system and stock option system , is it form company and " two-win " situation of shareholder to help. Through analyse share buy-back has there are his inherent drawbacks , there are a lot of favorable respects too at the same time, so the companies of various countries legislate from forbidding moving towards relaxing , while expanding exceptional situation of buy-back of shares, pay attention to adopting other restriction means even more, by reducing the emergence of its drawback as much as possible. Thus create good environment for management of the company.Chapter two to the comparative analysis of two kinds of modes of the legislative example of the buy-back of the share in the world. One it, mode of Germany, regard Germany , France as representative , adopt for most European countries , Japan , Korea S. , of our country Taiwan company law. These countries and regions principles forbid the buy-back of shares , only in specific and exceptional cases, is it allow company obtain one’s own share conditionally to start, at the same time too to make one’s own behavior of share make all sorts of restrictions. This text give an example Germany legislative example, Japan legislative example, France legislative example, Britain’s legislative example, European Union’s legislative example, the legislative example in Taiwan. Different from Germany’s mode, what U.S.A. adopted is the unique mode of " allowing in更多还原