股债融合视域下对赌协议的本质属性与法律规制  

Essential attribute and legal regulation to the VAM contract under the perspective of the integration of equity and debt

作　　者：冉克平[1] 张仪昭 RAN Keping;ZHANG Yizhao(Law School,Wuhan University,Wuhan 430072,P.R.China;Law School,Free University of Berlin,Berlin 14129,Germany)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072 [2]柏林自由大学法学院,德国柏林14129

出　　处：《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2025年第1期247-258,共12页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：研究阐释党的二十届三中全会精神国家社会科学基金重大项目“健全社会信用体系和监管制度的法治保障研究”(24JDA018)。

摘　　要：伴随2023年《公司法》的颁布和适用,如何在新法视域下理解对赌协议的法律本质并处理对赌协议履行难题是对赌协议理论和实践研究的新面向。对赌协议目前仍存在理论疑难与实践困境:其一,对赌协议的认定和构成存在困惑,其与明股实债的区分是目前司法实践的核心问题;其二,对赌协议效力与履行区分存在悖论。目前,尽管对赌协议在原则上被认为有效,但在我国资本市场已经出现了首例因违反证券市场公共利益而被认定无效的案件。《九民纪要》所提出的“效力-履行区隔论”使对赌协议陷入“履行悖论”,实际履行面临法律和事实上的困境。针对这些问题,应当重新厘清对赌协议的法律本质,并在此基础上重塑对赌协议履行困难的规范解法。首先,对赌协议法律性质特殊,是股权和债权融合的产物。这反映在对赌协议承载的经济利益状态上,其存在趋同与分化的特点,对赌协议投资方的经济利益存在债权人化的倾向。对赌协议的作用场域复杂,受到公司、合同和会计准则、金融监管规则的约束和限制。对赌协议中各方主体的权利实现机制存在交叉竞合,在交易构造上符合股债结合型融资的特质,在外部关系上,投资人身份在公司登记材料上记载为股东,而在内部关系上,投资人实际的法律地位是债权人而非股东,这种身份的交叉与转化依靠合同法与公司法工具。其次,对赌协议履行不能的法律困境根植于其股债融合的本质中,契约规则、组织法规则、会计准则、监管规则应当实现在对赌协议纠纷处理和争议解决上的协调统一。最后,在股债融合视域下,应当通过解释2023年《公司法》中有关类别股的相关规范实现对赌协议的履行。在种类上,应当明确对赌协议可以被类推适用为144条第一款中规定的优先股;在行权上,应当适用优先股表决权行使的一般限制并With the promulgation and application of the 2023 Company Law,understanding the legal essence of VAM contract and addressing the challenges of their performance under the new legal framework has become a new focus of theoretical and practical research on VAM contract.Currently,VAM contract still face theoretical ambiguities and practical challenges.Firstly,there is confusion regarding the recognition and constitution of VAM contract,and distinguishing them from disguised debt is a core issue in judicial practice.Secondly,there is a paradox in the distinction between the validity and performance of VAM contract.Although VAM contracts are generally considered valid,the first case of invalidation due to violation of public interest in the securities market has emerged,highlighting the legal and factual difficulties in the performance of VAM contract,leading to the performance paradox of VAM contract.To address these issues,it is necessary to reclarify the legal nature of VAM contract and,on this basis,reconstruct normative solutions to the difficulties in their performance.Firstly,VAM contract have a special legal nature,being a product of the integration of equity and debt.This is reflected in the economic interest state carried by VAM contract,which exhibits both convergence and divergence,with the economic interests of VAM contract investors showing a tendency towards creditorization.The scope of VAM contract is complex,being constrained by corporate law,contract law,accounting standards,and financial regulatory rules.The mechanism for realizing the rights of the parties involved in VAM contract shows overlapping competition,with the transaction structure aligning with the characteristics of equity-debt combined financing.Externally,the investor’s identity is recorded as a shareholder in company registration documents,while internally,the investor’s actual legal status is a creditor rather than a shareholder.This cross-over and transformation of identities rely on tools from contract law and company law.Secon

关 键 词：对赌协议 股债融合 2023年《公司法》 公司资本制度 中小企业融资 

分 类 号：D913.99[政治法律—民商法学]