【作者】 张蕾；

【导师】 赵旭东；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 表决权是股东权利中极为重要的一项权利。表决权拘束协议,从广义上讲,是股东之间或股东与第三人之间就表决权如何行使而达成的协议,是股东行使表决权的一种方式,是公司法与合同法碰撞的结晶。在实践中,通过表决权拘束协议获得话语权的现象十分普遍。因其灵活性和弹性,表决权拘束协议在英美德等国广为应用,并已经形成了比较完善的规范体系,而在我国,《公司法》中对此没有明确规定,在理论界探讨也不是很多,但在实践中已有尝试,如果出现纠纷,则会出现无法可依的情况。因此,本文旨在对表决权拘束协议在各国的发展的考察和对制度自身的分析,结合我国的公司治理环境和实践的需要,试图为该制度的本土化理论和实践提供一些思路。全文共分为绪论、正文和结论三部分,其中正文分为五章。第一章为表决权拘束协议的概述。各国学者对表决权拘束协议的概念都或多或少有不同的理解,而本文则采较为广义的含义,即表决权拘束协议是就表决权的行使而达成的协议,不仅包括以“表决权拘束协议”为名称的合同,也包括股东协议中的关于表决权行使拘束的条款。继而本文分析了表决权拘束协议的运行机理,以及表决权拘束协议在公众公司、封闭公司中的静态、动态的功能。第二章为表决权拘束协议在各国的发展状态的总结,即表决权拘束协议在各国都经历了一个从禁止到认可的过程。表决权拘束协议之所以在各国都存在争议的核心问题是,表决权能否成为合同的客体?表决权是一种特殊的权利,其不同于传统民法中的人身权或者是物权,却与股东的身份紧密相连。但表决权的客体化是意思自治的体现,是时代发展的需要,因而笔者赞成表决权可以作为表决权拘束协议的客体。第三章是表决权拘束协议与相似制度的辨析。虽然表决权拘束协议与表决权代理、表决权信托以及累积投票制等表决权相关的制度在功能上有很多相似之处,但是在制度构建上各有不同,且应用的时间和范围也不相同,因而它们不能相互替代。而且法律应当尽可能为当事人提供多种法律选择,而不能因为功能上的相似性而否定其存在的必要。第四章是表决权的制度分析。通过其在各国的具体制度的构建,分析表决权拘束协议一般会受到哪些限制,其成立需要哪些因素,在股权移转后该合同对受让人是否还生效,以及表决权拘束协议出现纠纷时应当如何救济,有哪些具体的方式,最后分析了股东违约行使表决权对会议决议的效力会造成什么样的影响。第五章是关于表决权拘束协议在我国的构建的一点思路。我国现在公司治理中最突出的问题仍然是大股东与中小股东之间的矛盾比较突出,表决权拘束协议在大股东之间可以成为其维持公司控制的手段,而在中小股东,则可以通过表决权拘束协议获得在公司治理中的话语权。表决权拘束协议正在以《一致行动人协议》、《关于表决权安排的协议》等形式在实践中多有使用,因而对于该类协议进行法律规范确有必要。而表决权拘束协议本质上是公司法与合同法的结合,因而不像表决权信托一样在制度构建上可能存在障碍,所以具有制度建立的可行性。本章的最后一部分则为我国构建表决权拘束协议提供了一点建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The right to vote is one of the most important rights of shareholders. Broadly speaking, voting agreements are agreements between shareholders or shareholders and other persons on how to vote. Voting agreements are one of the mechanisms of voting, which are based on company law and contract law. In practice, it’s common to see shareholders to control the company through voting agreements. Because of its flexibility, voting agreements are widely used in countries like America, UK, and Germany etc. Voting agreements are stipulated in their laws. In China, there’s no stipulation about voting agreements in Company Law and it’s not much discussed among experts on company law. But there’re shareholders entering into voting agreements in practice. If one of the parties disobeys the contract and sues before court, there will be no law to follow when judging such case. Following the practice in different countries and analysis of the mechanism itself, the article wants to give some suggestions on transplanting, or rather, building this mechanism in China to satisfy the practical needs of Chinese corporate governance.This article consists of three parts, which are preamble, the main body and conclusion. There’re five sections in the main body.The first section is a general description of the voting agreement. Voting agreements have different meanings in different persons’views. This article takes the broad description, which is that voting agreements talks about agreements on how to vote. It not only exists in the contracts with the title“voting agreements”, but also exists in shareholders agreements with some terms about agreements on how to vote. Then the way to function of the mechanism is talked as well as the different functions in public and private companies.The second section reviews the mechanism in different countries. It’s interesting to see that nearly in every country this mechanism was forbidden in the earlier times and later is recognized. The problem focuses on that whether the right to vote can be the object of the contract. The right to vote is specific in that it is different from the personal right or property right. Although it has close relation with the shareholders, it can be seen as an object to meet the needs of the times. So I agree that the right to vote can be the object of the voting agreement.The third section distinguishes the mechanism from other similar mechanisms. Voting agreements have much similarity with voting proxy, voting trusts and cumulative voting. They functions similar but they have different legal systems. They can not take the place of the others. From another perspective, the law should provide as much possibility as it can to the private persons. So it’s necessary to have different arrangements for shareholders to vote.The fourth section offers an explanation of voting agreements. It discusses the general rules about the voting agreements in different countries and brings up my own idea about this mechanism. It will talk about the general restriction of the law, how to enter into a valid voting agreement, how to deal with the voting agreement if the shares of one party are transferred to others, what kind of remedy will be used when and the effects on the decisions of the general meeting if one party disobeys. The fifth section explores paths for China to build this mechanism. The main problem to deal with in Chinese corporate governance is still the contradiction between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders.Voting agreements can provide the way to maintain the controlling of the company between majority shareholders and can provide the way to speak in general meetings for minority shareholders. In practice, there’ve been agreements like Agreements on Acting in Concert, Agreements on Arrangement of Voting etc. But there’s no law to regulate them. So it’s necessary to build this mechanism in China. Besides, since it’s the combination of company law and contract law, there’s on hindrance in building it into our law system. The last part of the section offers some suggestions on building this mechanism in China.更多还原