摘要
在股权回购型对赌协议纠纷中,如果合同未明确约定多个股东履行回购义务的方式,法院判决呈现出连带责任、共同责任和按份责任三种不同的结果。法院的判决理由虽能体现分析案件事实和适用法律规范的合理性,但存在不同程度的疏漏,导致投资人实现债权面临阻碍。在我国《民法典》框架下,结合新《公司法》的立场,法院应科学识别对赌协议中的要素特征,根据合同具体内容判断市场主体所求,据此认定连带责任或者按份责任,并根据责任承担方式选择执行方案。此司法路径的完善不仅有助于形成相对统一的结论,也有助于落实商事审判的理念要求。
In disputes over share repurchase Valuation Adjustment Mechanism,if the contract fails to explicitly specify the manner in which multiple shareholders bear the repurchase obligations,the courts'judgments present three different outcomes:joint liability,shared liability,or proportional liability.While courts'judgments reflect the rationality of analyzing case facts and applying legal norms,there are varying degrees of omissions leading to obstacles for investors to realize their creditor's rights.Under the framework of China's Civil Code,combined with the stance of the new Company Law,courts should scientifically identify the elements and features of Valuation Adjustment Mechanism,judge the intentions of the market entities based on the specific contents of the contracts,thereby determining joint liability or proportional liability,and select enforcement plans according to the mode of liability.The refinement of judicial paths not only aids in forming relatively consistent conclusions but also contributes to the implementation of the conceptual requirements of commercial trials.
出处
《法治研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第5期79-89,共11页
Research on Rule of Law
基金
2022年度重庆市教育委员会人文社会科学研究规划项目“企业破产预重整制度研究”(项目编号:22SKGH029)阶段性成果。
关键词
对赌协议
共同回购
股东义务
责任承担
司法路径
valuation adjustment mechanism
shared repurchase
shareholders'obligations
liability allocation
judicial paths
作者简介
赵吟,西南政法大学民商法学院教授、博士生导师。
