目标公司参与实质对赌效力问题新探

A New Inquiry of the Validity of Target Company's Participation in Substantial Valuation Adjustment Mechanism

最高法院2018年9月7日再审作出的强静延与山东瀚霖生物技术有限公司(下称瀚霖公司)、曹务波股转转让纠纷案(下称“瀚霖案”)判决,引起理论和实务界对投资人与目标公司对赌效力问题的关注。最高法院在判决中肯定了目标公司以担保人的身份加入对赌协议中的做法,笔者认为这是对最高法院在对赌第一案“海富案”中确立的“与股东对赌有效、与目标公司对赌无效”的裁判规则实质上的修正。事实上,对目标公司能否参与对赌、承担股权估值调整义务问题,中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会的仲裁庭采取了与最高法院不同的态度,其在2014年的一起仲裁案裁决中认定投资人与目标公司之间的对赌有效。通过研究最高法院再审的“瀚霖”案,我们可以得出将目标公司引入对赌协议、实现投资者与目标公司实质对赌的新思路,并可从中得到相关启示。

The retrialjudgment on Sep 7th,2018 made by the Supreme Court over QiangJingyan and Shandong Hanlin Biotechnology Co.,ltd.,Cao Wubo shares transfer dispute(hereinafter referred to as“Hanlin Case”)has aroused the attention of both the theoretical and practice circles to the validity of Valuation Adjustment Mechanism(VAM)between the investor and the target company.In this judgment,the Supreme Court affirmed the target company's practice of joining VAM as a guarantor.In the author's opinion,this is a substantive amendment of Supreme Court's judgment to the rule“valid with the shareholders while invalid with the target company”,which is confirmed by a landmark case named“Haifu Case”.In fact,the arbitral tribunal of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC)has adopted a different attitude from the Supreme Court on theproblem of whether the target company can take part in the VAM and undertake the equity valuation adjustment obligations.In an arbitral award in 2014,The CIETAC recognized the validity of the VAM between the investor and the target company.By studying the“Hanlin Case”of the retrial by the Supreme Court,we can draw a new idea of introducing the target company into the VAM,realizing the substantial valuation adjustment mechanism between the investor and the target company,and get some enlightenment from it.