论有限责任公司实际出资人显名的程序性要件

On the Procedural Requirements for Showing the Name of the Actual Investor of the Limited Liability Company

本应显名的实际出资人如不能显名,不仅损害实际出资人的合法权益,也有损公司治理。《九民会纪要》第28条对《公司法解释(三)》第24条关于实际出资人显名需经其他股东半数以上同意的规定进行了解释,将明示同意扩大到默示同意,即对实际出资人行使股东权利未提出异议。审判实践中对何为“未提出异议”有不同认识。在现有法律框架内,本文认为,对实际出资人行使股东权利提出异议,是指对其在公司经营中行使法定股东权利而言,仅是反对其显名的要求或者不承认其股东身份,不构成提出异议。另,现有显名的程序性要件规定过于刚性,在公司法修订草案取消股权对外转让中其他股东同意的背景下,本文建议对此予以柔化,仅作原则性规定,同时明确四种情形不再要求程序性要件。

If the actual investor who should have shown the name cannot show name,it will not only harm the legitimate rights and interests of the actual investor,but also harm the governance of the company.Article 28 of the Minutes of the National Court Work Conference on Civil and Commercial Adjudication is targeted at“Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China provisions on several Issues III”Article 24,explains the requirement that the displayed name of the actual investor must be approved by more than half of the other shareholders,expands express consent to implied consent,that is,there is no objection to the actual investor’s exercise of shareholder rights.In trial practice,there are different understandings of what“no objection”is,resulting in different judgment standards.In the existing legal framework,this paper argues that raising objections to actual investors exercising shareholder rights,refers to shareholders exercising statutory shareholder rights in the company’s operations,only opposing the claim of the actual investor’s displayed name or not recognizing the actual investor’s shareholder status,is not an objection.In addition,in view of the fact that the existing procedural requirement for the displayed name of the actual investor is too rigid,in the context of canceling the consent rights of other shareholders in the external transfer of equity in the revised draft of the Company Law,from the perspective of legislation theory,this paper proposes to soften the procedural requirements,only for principled provisions,and clarify that the procedural requirements is no longer required in the four circumstances.