Abstract: Disputes over valuation adjustment mechanism agreements have long been caught in the dilemma of being “valid as contracts but difficult to enforce.” The root cause lies in the insufficient clarification of the coordinated relationship between contract law and company law.Although a valuation adjustment clause appears as a contractual arrangement attached to an investment agreement, where it provides that the company shall repurchase shares or equity interests from the investor upon the occurrence of specified conditions, it in substance constitutes a reverse transaction in the opposite direction to the investor's subscription for shares.It therefore cannot be assessed solely from the perspective of contract law.From the perspective of corporate organizational law, the investors' repurchase right or redemption right is not merely a creditor's claim, but a special right attached to the company's shareholding structure and the arrangement of shareholder rights.Its creation should be based on a provision in the articles of association or an equivalent resolution of the shareholders' meeting.The company's performance of the repurchase obligation will result in the return of corporate assets to a specific shareholder and may further trigger changes in the company's capital.It must therefore be subject to the capital maintenance doctrine and comply with rules on capital reduction procedures, legally available sources of funds, and creditor protection.Accordingly, the company's payment of the repurchase price should be limited to legally available funds.Where the company is unable to make payment due to insufficient funds or because the statutory restrictions on available funds are not satisfied, such non-payment does not automatically constitute a breach of contract.The investor should bear the corresponding investment risk.

Key words: Share Redemption, Redemption Right, Valuation Adjustment Clause, Articles of Association, Organizational Law Effect

摘要： 对赌协议纠纷长期陷入“合同有效但难以执行”的困境,根源在于合同法与公司法的协同关系尚未厘清。对赌条款表现为附着于投资协议的合同安排,但约定公司在特定条件下向投资人回购股份,在实质上构成与认购股份方向相反的反向交易,不能仅以合同法评价。从公司组织法角度看,投资人的回购权或赎回权并非单纯债权请求权,而是依附于股份(股权)结构和股东权利安排的特殊权利,其创设应以章程记载或等效股东会决议为基础。公司履行回购义务将导致公司财产向特定股东返还并可能引发资本变动,故须受资本维持原则的规制,遵守减资程序、财源限制和债权人保护规则。公司支付回购款应以依法可用的财源为限;公司仅因缺乏依法可用财源而不能支付回购款的,不当然构成违约;但公司怠于启动程序、恶意阻却决议形成,转移或抽逃资产等构成违约或侵权的,仍可能承担相应责任。

关键词: 股权回购, 回购权, 对赌条款, 公司章程, 组织法效果