法学家

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

对赌协议何以履行不能?——一个公司法与民法的交叉研究

贺剑,法学博士,北京大学法学院助理教授。   

  • 出版日期:2021-01-15 发布日期:2021-01-22

How Could the Performance of a Valuation Adjustment Mechanism be Impossible?——An Interdisciplinary Study in the Realm of Company Law and Civil Law

He Jian,Ph.D. in Law,Assistant Professor of Peking University Law School.   

  • Online:2021-01-15 Published:2021-01-22

摘要:

《九民纪要》第5条及“华工案”之后,以资本维持原则、减资程序为代表的公司法上的强制性规定,不再导致投资方与目标公司之间的对赌协议无效,而仅使其陷入“履行不能”。这涉及一系列横跨公司法与民法之新问题,有研讨必要。现金补偿、股权回购等金钱债务的履行因违反资本维持原则受阻,构成法律上(自始)一时不能,是传统民法教义“金钱债务无履行不能”之例外。该一时不能应类推适用《民法典》第580条,产生一个法定宽限期,相应迟延违约责任不会被一并免除。减资程序与履行不能无关,应将其细分为债权人保护程序和股东会减资决议:前者可强制执行,以之阻碍投资方的股权回购请求权,正当性存疑;后者涉及越权代表,且与股权回购决议为等价关系,其欠缺将导致股权回购约定效力待定。现金补偿约定之有效,亦以相应利润分配决议即现金补偿决议为必要。

关键词: 资本维持原则, 现金补偿, 股权回购, 越权代表, 与公司对赌

Abstract:

According to Article 5 of Jiuminjiyao as well as the holding of Huagong case,the compulsory provisions of the company law,such as the principle of capital maintenance and rules on capital reduction,only make the Valuation Adjustment Mechanism(VAM),instead of being null and void as before,impossible to be performed.This involves a series of new issues across company law and civil law,which are worth being explored.The performance of monetary duties under the VAT,including duty of performance based on compensation and duty of share redemption,could be impossible due to violation of the principle of capital maintenance,which constitutes a temporary legal impossibility(from the very beginning).It is an exception to the traditional civil law doctrine of“no impossibility for performance of monetary debt”.Article 110 of the Contract Law(or Article 580 of the Civil Code)may be applied in case of the temporary impossibility by analogy,resulting in a statutory grace period,and hence the accompanying liability for delayed performance will not be automatically exempted.The capital reduction procedure has nothing to do with impossibility of performance.It contains two different parts,namely creditor protection procedures and shareholder resolutions on capital reduction.The former is enforceable,while its legitimacy to interfere with the investor’s right of share redemption is doubtful;the latter is related to unauthorized representatives and is equivalent to a shareholder resolution on share redemption,the lack of which will make the sharer redemption agreement in the VAT indeterminable.Similarly,the lack of a shareholder resolution on profit distribution or performance based compensation will also make an agreement on performance based compensation indeterminable.

Key words: Principle of Capital Maintenance, Performance Based Compensation, Share Redemption, Valuation Adjustment Mechanism between the Investor and the Company, Unauthorized Representative