检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:黄耀锋
机构地区:[1]宁波大学,浙江 宁波
出 处:《法学(汉斯)》2021年第6期656-662,共7页Open Journal of Legal Science
摘 要:我国《公司法》第102条规定了股东提案权制度,但究其实貌,该制度在具体内部细则的建构和实施标准的明确上缺乏详细的规定,此种制度缺漏对我国公司实务中股东正常行使提案权造成了一定的困难。从比较法的视野来看,日本和美国的提案权制度都经历了较长的发展时间,并在各自实践的基础上形成了相应的制度规范结构。探究二者的立法经验,可以为我国股东提案权制度完善提供有益参考。我国应当从股东提案权行使条件、董事会审查义务以及股东提案权救济制度三个方面着手,对我国的股东提案权制度进行调整,以明确公司机构的相应职权,进而完善对股东权利的保护。Article 102 of China’s company law stipulates the system of shareholders’ proposal rights, but in fact, the system lacks detailed provisions on the construction of specific internal rules and the defi-nition of implementation standards. This lack of the system has caused some difficulties for share-holders to exercise their proposal rights normally in China’s company practice. From the perspec-tive of comparative law, the proposal rights system of Japan and the United States has experienced a long development time, and formed the corresponding system normative structure on the basis of their respective practice. Exploring their legislative experience can provide a useful reference for the improvement of the shareholders’ proposal rights system in China. China should adjust the sys-tem of shareholders’ proposal rights from three aspects: the exercise conditions of shareholders’ proposal rights, the review obligation of the board of directors and the relief system of shareholders’ proposal rights, so as to clarify the corresponding functions and powers of corporate institutions, and then improve the protection of shareholders’ rights.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.205