新公司法下“对赌协议”履行进路探析——以厘清合同法与公司法的关系为前提  

An Argumentation of the Enforcement of VAM under the Company Law of 2024——On the Basis of Clarification of the Relationship Between the Contract Law and the Company Law

作　　者：罗开卷 周天娇 LUO Kaijuan;ZHOU Tianjiao

机构地区：[1]上海市第二中级人民法院 [2]上海市浦东新区人民法院

出　　处：《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》2024年第6期20-29,共10页Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science & Law(The Rule of Law Forum)

摘　　要：合同法与公司法在规范层面系平行法,在价值取向上各有侧重,同时还在功能上相互协同。对赌协议履行困境背后的本质问题,事实上就是合同法与公司法关系的认定问题。公司法强制性规范在介入合同自治领域时应遵循“最小、必要”的基本原则,尽量避免影响合同效力或合同履行,完全坚持“公司法优先”理念并不利于商事纠纷的解决。公司法上的资本维持原则不构成对赌协议履行的绝对障碍,实体上的留存收益和资本公积均有可能作为履行对赌义务的资金来源,程序上的公司决议程序及债权人保护程序亦存在变通解释或改变进路的可能。新公司法新增的控股股东滥用股东权利时其他股东的回购请求权条款,以及类别股条款,为对赌协议的履行开辟了新的空间。The Contract Law and the Company Law are normatively parallel,with their respective values and functional synergies.The essential issue behind the enforcement of Valuation Adjustment Mechanism(VAM)is the recognition of the relationship between the Contract Law and the Company Law.The mandatory norms of the Company Law should follow the basic rule of“minimum and necessity”when they intervene in the field of contract,without affecting the validity of contract or the enforcement of contract as far as possible.The capital maintenance principle does not constitute an absolute obstacle,and both retained earnings and capital accruals in the entity may serve as a source of funds.The procedures of company resolutions and creditors protection may also be subject to interpretation or change of course.The amendment of the Company Law adding repurchase-request clause for other shareholders when controlling shareholders abuse shareholder rights,as well as class-share clause,has opened up new space for the enforcement of VAM.

关 键 词：新公司法 对赌协议 履行不能 资本维持 合同自由 

分 类 号：DF411.91[政治法律—经济法学]