对赌协议的司法规制省思及路径探索

Rethinking and Exploring the Path of Judicial Regulation on Valuation Adjustment Mechanism

司法实践中,对赌协议股债融合的属性曾使其效力饱受争议,尽管对赌协议的效力最终得以正名,但与减资程序捆绑的履行条件使对赌协议的价值落空,也暴露出从利益衡量切入进行类型化分析的司法缺陷。为实现商事自由与司法规制的最大调和,应以合同有效解释原则和公司目的取向为规制理念,借助会计实践对实收资本与资本溢价的灵活划分,回应商事主体股债融合的交易安排,同时还应明确由目标公司承担其存在履行障碍的证明责任,以此突破判定目标公司履行能力的难点。

Valuation adjustment mechanism(VAM)is a financial innovation tool integrated the nature of equity-debt,which leads to its controversial effectiveness in judicial adjudication.Although the effectiveness of VAM is justified,the target company is required to complete capital reduction,which makes VAM valueless and exposes the judicial defect of the typological analysis from the perspective of interest measurement.To achieve the greatest harmony between commercial freedom and judicial regulation,the judge should first take the principle of effective contract interpretation and the orientation of the company’s purpose as the regulatory ideas.Besides,borrowing ideas from the flexible division of paid-in capital and capital premium in accounting practice,the judge could respond to the commercial transaction arrangement of the equity-debt integration.Moreover,the burden of proof regarding the incompetence of performance should be laid on the target company,whereby the target company’s competence concerning the performance of the contract could be justifiably determined.