论文部分内容阅读
公司的性质长期以来备受争议,其症结在于——公司应为法律的产物抑或契约之链接。2014年5月8日,作为契约关系理论的又一次重要实践,特拉华州最高法院裁定认可ATP公司将诉讼成本转嫁条款植入其章程的行为,从而使股东派生诉讼中的胜诉者可以请求相对方承担其律师费用。这一判决不仅体现了特州法院对于公司章程契约属性的认可,更出于抑制股东派生诉讼过度泛滥之目的以及对董事信义义务的重新考量。就我国而言,律师费用长期以来一直为当事人个人之诉讼成本,仅于特殊情形下才得以请求败诉方承担。故该条款的科学植入,将有助于增强我国公司管理者的固有权利,加强股东派生诉讼制度对小股东的可执行性,并抑制该诉讼所产生的负面作用。
The nature of the company has long been controversial, the crux of the matter being that the company should be the product of law or the link to a contract. On May 8, 2014, as another important practice of contractual relations theory, the Supreme Court of Delaware ruled in favor of affirming ATP Corp’s imposition of a legally binding clause on the transfer of litigation costs so that a prevailing litigant in a derivative action may request The counterparty bears the cost of his lawyer. The verdict not only reflects the recognition by the state court of the special state on the contractual attributes of the articles of association, but also aims at restraining excessive proliferation of shareholders’ derivative action and reconsidering the fiduciary duties of the directors. For my country, the cost of lawyers has long been the litigation cost of individuals and has been available to the losing party only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the scientific implantation of this article will help enhance the inherent rights of the managers of our country, strengthen the enforceability of the shareholder derivative litigation system to the minority shareholders, and restrain the negative effects of the litigation.