新《公司法》实施中公司机会规则的适用研究

Study on the Legal Deployment and Compliance of Company Opportunity Doctrinesin Enforcing the New Corporate Law

在新《公司法》“弘扬企业家精神”总则条款的价值指引下,董监高义务迎来了体系化升级。作为忠实义务重要组成部分的公司机会规则被单列于第183条之中,不仅义务主体扩张至监事,而且增加了报告义务与批准程序,更将“公司不能”作为豁免责任的事由。这意味着公司机会规则已从约束少数公司决策者的“行为规范”进化为平衡公司与企业家群体间利益冲突的“协调机制”。在新法实施过程中,仍将面临公司机会与竞业禁止的界限模糊、公司机会的认定标准缺失以及豁免事由不周延的现实困境。立足解释论视角,应当借助体系解释方法顺应公司利益概念回归的立法趋势,明确公司机会期待利益的法律属性;以经营活动标准解释公司机会的识别机制;以“经济不能”扩大解释公司机会豁免事由,借以提升公司机会规则实施的可行性。

Guided by the principles of “Promoting Entrepreneurship” as outlined in the new Company Law, the obligations of directors and supervisors have undergone a systematic enhancement. As a crucial component of fiduciary duty, the corporate opportunity doctrine is distinctly articulated in Article 183, which not only broadens the scope of obligation to include supervisors but also introduces reporting requirements and an approval process, allowing for “corporate incapacity” as grounds for liability exemption. This signifies that the corporate opportunity doctrine has transitioned from merely serving as a “code of conduct” constraining select corporate decision-makers to functioning as a “coordination mechanism” that reconciles conflicting interests between the company and its entrepreneurial stakeholders. During the implementation of the new law, we will continue to encounter the practical dilemma of obscuring the distinction between corporate opportunity and non-competition, as well as a lack of standards for identifying corporate opportunities and ambiguous justifications for exemptions. From an interpretative theoretical perspective, it is essential to align with the legislative trend towards a regression in the concept of corporate interests by employing systematic interpretation methods, thereby clarifying the legal nature of expectations related to corporate opportunities. A mechanism should be established to identify opportunities within business activities;furthermore, to enhance the feasibility of enforcing corporate opportunity rules, exemptions should be justified through “economic impossibility”.