间接收购语境下股东优先购买权规则刍议——兼评南钢控制权转让案  

Ruminations on the Rule of Shareholders’Right of First Refusal in the Context of Indirect Acquisition—Commenting on the Case of Transfer of Control Rights of Nangang

作　　者：马更新[1] 王端阳 MA Gengxin;WANG Duanyang

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院 [2]中国政法大学中欧法学院

出　　处：《经贸法律评论》2024年第2期74-89,共16页Business and Economic Law Review

摘　　要：继“上海外滩地王案”之后,“南钢控制权转让案”再度引发了关于股东优先购买权的激烈讨论。在间接收购的情况下,股东优先购买权呈现出两个新特点,即权利保护自主性对象的偏移以及权利义务的异体性,因而其正当性基础有所动摇。基于法律解释的视角,现行立法并没有将间接收购作为行使股东优先购买权的禁止性条件,对有限公司人合性利益的保护实际上是重形式轻实质,容易造成对非股东受让人的利益保护失衡,且进一步导致“同等条件”的模糊不清。对间接收购时目标公司原股东是否享有优先购买权的态度,应当由默许更改为原则上禁止,特殊情况下允许,且此特殊情况一般指公司章程中有明确约定。Following the“Shanghai Bund Land King Case”,the“Case of tranfer of control rights of Nangang”has once again triggered a heated discussion on shareholders’right of first refusal.In the case of indirect acquisition,the shareholders’right of first refusal presents two new features which are the shift of the object of the autonomy of rights protection and the heterogeneity of the rights and obligations,and thus its legitimacy foundation has been shaken.From the perspective of legal interpretation,the current legislation does not make indirect acquisition a prohibited condition for the exercise of the shareholders’right of first refusal,which in fact protects the interests of the limited company’s personal relationship by emphasizing the form over the substance,which may easily lead to the imbalance of the protection of the interests of non-shareholders’assignee,and furthermore,leads to the ambiguity of the“equal conditions”.This article argues that the attitude of the Company Law towards whether the original shareholders of the target company enjoy the right of first refusal in the case of indirect acquisition should be changed from acquiescence to prohibition in principle,but allowed under special circumstances,which generally means that there is an explicit agreement in the articles of association of the company.

关 键 词：股东优先购买权 间接收购 人合性利益 利益衡量 

分 类 号：D922.291.91[政治法律—经济法学]