股权变动模式再审视——兼谈股权表征方式的完善

On the pattern of shareholding changes Improving the representation mode of shareholding

由于公司法对股权变动模式的规定不明确,形成了债权意思主义与债权形式主义两种解释。意思主义被认为更符合我国实证法特别是《公司法》第32条,因而成为通说。但依据《公司法》第32条2款"记载于股东名册的股东,可以依股东名册主张行使股东权利"之规定,仅能得出股东名册登记是行使股权的充分要件,不足以证其为对抗要件,更不能得出其非生效要件,因此意思主义的解释逻辑存在瑕疵。股权变动的生效要件应认定为法律漏洞,由债权形式主义弥补:一方面,意思主义将股权权属与股东身份、权利行使等割裂,难以与相关制度衔接,特别是以股东名册和工商登记共同作为股权表征,易引起权利确定的混乱;另一方面,债权形式主义与股权性质理论以及股权优先购买权、股权善意取得等制度相契合,在需审批的股权转让合同效力的判定上与民法原理一致,可激励股权交易双方积极公示,并利于增强交易的效率与安全。依据股权表征的要求与域外立法经验,应由股东名册表征股权,并对其制作、公示、更改、维护及相关责任作体系化的规定,以维护交易效率与安全。

Due to the imprecise stipulation about shareholding changes in the Company Law, there are two viewpoints about changes of shareholding, which are respectively consensualism and formalism of creditor s right. The consensualism is believed to be more aligned with China s positive laws, especially Article 32 in the Company Law, thus more prevalent. However, from Section 2 of Article 32 in the Company Law, which says “shareholders named in the register of shareholders may exercise their shareholders rights in accordance with the register of shareholders”, we can only conclude that register of shareholders is the sufficient requirement to exercise shareholder s rights, but not the confronting or valid requirement. Therefore, there is flaw in the interpretation of logic of consensualism. The valid requirement for shareholding changes should be considered a legal loophole, which will be remedied by formalism of creditor s right. On the one hand, consensualism separates shareholders rights from their identity and exercise of rights, and takes both register of shareholders and business registration as representation of shareholding; on the other hand, formalism, together with theory of shareholding property and preemptive right of shareholding, encourages both sides of shareholding transaction to announce publicly and promotes the efficiency and security of transactions.