河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版) ›› 2024, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (4): 93-115.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6378.2024.04.009

• 法学研究 • 上一篇    

论公司合规治理与市场交易安全的理性博弈:以公司对外担保决议制度的漏洞解释为中心

刘俊海   

  1. 中国人民大学 法学院, 北京 100872
  • 收稿日期:2024-04-13 发布日期:2024-07-31
  • 作者简介:刘俊海(1969—),男,河北泊头人,中国人民大学法学院教授、博士生导师,中国人民大学民商事法律科学研究中心兼职研究员,主要研究方向:公司法、证券法。
  • 基金资助:
    全国工商联2023年度委托课题“法治民企研究”(2023K20237)

On the Rational Game Between Corporate Compliance Governance and Market Transaction Security:Focusing on the Interpretation of the Loopholes in the Corporate External Guarantee System

LIU Junhai   

  1. School of Law, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
  • Received:2024-04-13 Published:2024-07-31

摘要: 为规范公司对外担保与投资等重大决策,遏制法定代表人越权签约风险,增强公司风险防控能力,维护动态交易安全,促进经济高质量发展,必须激活公司民主治理规则的公示公信效力,重构公司合规治理基础之上的市场交易安全新秩序。彰显公司真实意思表示的载体是公司决议,而非法定代表人签字盖章。代表权源于公司决策权,而非越权者的自我赋权。《公司法》第15条是效力性规范。法定代表人越权签署的担保合同无效,除非公司决议予以追认或构成表见代表。合同无效或对公司不生效时,公司无过错,不对相对人负缔约过错责任,相对人只能请求法定代表人履行债务或赔偿损害。公司“为他人提供担保”中的“他人”应解释为债务人,而非债权人。若法律对决议机关有规定,从法律;若法无规定,从章程;若章程无规定,相对人应核查股东会决议。公司在为股东或实控人的关联方提供担保前也要获得股东会授权。上市公司对外担保的公司前置决议要遵守公司决议规则、信息披露规则与先合同义务规则。《公司法》第59条第3款规定股东全员一致同意签字规则是效力性规范。建议废止《担保制度解释》第8条越权创设的2/3股东签字同意规则。公司自益担保、公司向双控人提供反担保、一人公司为股东提供担保、营业担保、非公众公司为全资子公司作保都享受例外豁免。公司对外转投资纳入公司前置决议程序的规定亦为效力性规范。

关键词: 对外担保, 公司前置决议, 效力性规范, 相对人, 缔约过错, 例外豁免

Abstract: In order to standardize corporate external guarantee and investments and other major decisions,curb the risk of the legal representatives unauthorized contracting,enhance corporate risk control competence,maintain dynamic transaction security,and promote high-quality economic development,it is necessary to activate the publicity and credibility of corporate democratic governance rules,and reconstruct the new order of market transaction security based on corporate compliance governance.The carrier that shows the true corporate intention is its resolution,rather than the signature and seal of the legal representative.The right of representation stems from corporate decision-making power,not the self-empowerment of the ultra violator.Article 15 of the Company Law is a validity rule.The guarantee contract signed by the ultra vires legal representative is invalid,unless the company resolves to recognize it or constitutes an apparent representative.When the contract is invalid or does not take effect against the company,the company is not at fault and is not liable for the damage of the counter-party,and the counter-party can only request the legal representative to perform the debt or compensate for the damage.The beneficiary of corporate security is the debtor,not the creditor.If the law has designated the resolution organ,the law shall prevail.If there are no provisions in the law,follow the articles of association.If there are no provisions in the articles of association,the counter-party shall verify the resolution of the shareholders meeting.The company must also secure the authorization of the shareholders meeting before providing guarantees to the related parties of the shareholders or actual controllers.The corporate pre-resolution on guarantee by the listed company shall comply with the rules on corporate resolution,disclosure and pre-contractual obligations.Paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the Company Law stipulates that the unanimous consent of all shareholders is a validity norm.The two-thirds shareholder signature consent rule created by Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Guarantee System of the Civil Code should be repealed.The corporate self-benefit guarantee,corporate counter-guarantee to the dual controllers,the one-person companys guarantee to shareholders,the business guarantee,and the non-public corporate guarantee for the wholly-owned subsidiary are all exempted.The requirement that the companys outward transfer of investment is included in corporate pre-resolution procedure is also a validity norm.

Key words: external guarantee, corporate pre-resolution, validity norms, counter-party,contractual fault, exemption

中图分类号: