第四章 閉鎖性公司少數股東之保護機制與救濟模
第三節、 各國閉鎖性公司少數股東之救濟模式
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
138
第三節、 各國閉鎖性公司少數股東之救濟模式
對於公司法上規定由股東會決議通過之重大事項，少數股東可 能成為控制股東獨佔利益的阻礙，於是可能引發控制股東採取壓迫 手段來完成其目標，以排除少數股東參與決策或減損少數股東利 益。而控制股東的行為侵害到少數股東之財產權之救濟管道為何，
以下就美國、英國以及日本所採用之解決途徑開始介紹，以分析比 較其利益得失。
第一項、 美國 一、 代表訴訟
依據美國模範商業公司法第 7.41 條354規定，股東若欲提起代表 訴訟，必須滿足「同時擁有股份原則」（contemporaneous
ownership requirement），亦即於起訴所主張之不法行為發生時，該 股東即已為公司之股東。此一要求也明文於美國聯邦民事訴訟規則 以及多數州的公司法之中355，可以說是美國法上普遍性的規範。
依第 7.42 條356規定，股東需先以書面向公司請求採取適當行動 並等待 90 天後，始可提出代表訴訟。但若公司在 90 天內已通知股 東拒絕其請求，或是公司可能因不法行為遭受不可回復的損害，在 此兩種情形下，股東無須等待 90 天期間的經過，即可提起訴訟。
相對於此一所謂的「全面請求原則」（亦即需公司有不可回復損害 之虞時，股東始得豁免請求），德拉瓦州則發展出「雙叉測試原
354 MBCA §7.41 STANDING: A shareholder may not commence or maintain a derivative proceeding unless the shareholder: (1) was a shareholder of the corporation at the time of the act or omission complained of or became a shareholder through transfer by operation of law from one who was a shareholder at that time; and (2) fairly and adequately represents the interests of the corporation in enforcing the right of the corporation.
355 DEBORAH A.DEMOTT,SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION:LAW AND PRACTICE354, 384-385 (2014).
356 MBCA §7.42 DEMAND: No shareholder may commence a derivative proceeding until: (1) a written demand has been made upon the corporation to take suitable action; and (2) 90 days have expired from the date delivery of the demand was made unless the shareholder has earlier been notified that the demand has been rejected by the corporation or unless irreparable injury to the corporation would result by waiting for the expiration of the 90 day period.
‧
且適當地代表公司之利益」（fairly and adequately represents the interests of the corporation），否則即不得提起之。其次，依據第 7.45 條358的規定，代表訴訟的中止或和解，都必須經過法院的允358 MBCA §7.45 DISCONTINUANCE OR SETTLEMENT: A derivative proceeding may not be discontinued or settled without the court’s approval. If the court determines that a proposed discontinuance or settlement will substantially affect the interests of the corporation’s shareholders or a class of shareholders, the court shall direct that notice be given to the shareholders affected.
359 MBCA §7.44 DISMISSAL: (a) A derivative proceeding shall be dismissed by the court on motion by the corporation if one of the groups specified in subsection (b) or subsection (e) has determined in good faith, after conducting a reasonable inquiry upon which its conclusions are based, that the maintenance of the derivative proceeding is not in the best interests of the corporation. (b) Unless a panel is appointed pursuant to subsection (e), the determination in subsection (a) shall be made by:
(1) a majority vote of qualified directors present at a meeting of the board of directors if the qualified directors constitute a quorum; or(2) a majority vote of a committee consisting of two or more qualified directors appointed by majority vote of qualified directors present at a meeting of the board of directors, regardless of whether such qualified directors constitute a quorum. (c) If a derivative proceeding is commenced after a determination has been made rejecting a demand by a shareholder, the complaint shall allege with particularity facts establishing either (1) that a majority of the board of directors did not consist of qualified directors at the time the determination was made or (2) that the requirements of subsection (a) have not been met. (d) If a majority of the board of directors consisted of qualified directors at the time the determination was made, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the requirements of subsection (a) have not been met; if not, the corporation shall have the burden of proving that the requirements of subsection (a) have been met. (e)Upon motion by the corporation, the court may appoint a panel of one or more individuals to make a determination whether the maintenance of the derivative proceeding is in the best interests of the corporation. In such case, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving that the requirements of subsection (a) have not been met.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
140
映出美國司法實務上對於公司董事會之獨立董事決定的高度尊重，
特別訴訟委員會（Special Litigation Committee, SLC）的發展與運作 即由此而生。換言之，當董事會受股東請求起訴時，由與請求爭議 無利害關係並具獨立性之董事所組成的特別委員會，以對股東起訴 是否具備合理性為調查，讓公司能藉此避免不當訴訟的侵擾，以避 免惡意股東恣意起訴干擾公司正常經營360。
關於代表訴訟費用的負擔，第 7.46 條361規定也賦予法院極大的 裁量權。若法院認為訴訟對公司有顯著利益（substantial benefit to the corporation），可以命公司支付原告已支出之費用；若法院認為 訴訟之提起並無合理理由（without reasonable cause）或是基於不 正當之目的（for an improper purpose），則可以命原告支付被告所 支出之費用。
二、 訴請解散公司
觀諸美國模範商業公司法第 14.30 條（a）（2）之規定：「（2）
公司如有下列所列情事之一者，股東得聲請法院解散之：（I）董事 對公司業務之執行發生無法由股東解決之僵局，有致生無法回復損 害之虞者，或致生公司之經營或業務對股東不利益者；（II）董事或 公司之控制者，已為、正為或將為不法、壓迫或詐欺之行為者；
（III）股東在表決權之行使上發生僵局，且至少連續二次股東常會 無法選任管理人以補足董事之任期；（IV）公司資產遭不當運用或浪
360 周振鋒，前揭註 357，頁 270-273。
361 MBCA §7.46 PAYMENT OF EXPENSES: On termination of the derivative proceeding the court may:
(1) order the corporation to pay the plaintiff’s expenses incurred in the proceeding if it finds that the proceeding has resulted in a substantial benefit to the corporation; (2) order the plaintiff to pay any defendant’s expenses incurred in defending the proceeding if it finds that the proceeding was commenced or maintained without reasonable cause or for an improper purpose; or (3) order a party to pay an opposing party’s expenses incurred because of the filing of a pleading, motion or other paper, if it finds that the pleading, motion or other paper was not well grounded in fact, after reasonable inquiry, or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law and was interposed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
‧
364 MBCA §14.30(b): Section 14.30(a)(2) shall not apply in the case of a corporation that, on the date of the filing of the proceeding, has shares that are: (i) listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or on any ex-change owned or operated by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, or listed or quoted on a system owned or operated by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; or (ii) not so listed or quoted, but are held by at least 300 shareholders and the shares out-standing have a market value of at least $ 20 million (exclusive of the value of such shares held by the corporations subsidiaries, senior executives, directors and beneficial share-holders owning more than 10 percent of such shares).
365 The Committee on Corporate Laws, ABA Section of Business Law, Report: Changes In The Model Business Corporation Act--Amendments To Chapters 1, 7, And 14 With Conforming Amendments To Related Provisions Of The Act, 61 BUS.LAW. 1183, (May, 2006).
366 MBCA §14.34(a), supra note 38.
‧
367 Michael E. Brown, Comment and Note: Missouri Close Corporations: Proposals to Strengthen Protections for Minority Shareholders, 68 UMKCLAW REVIEW 145, 147 (1999).
368 Robert A. Ragazzo, supra note 195, at 1118.
369 E.g., Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Alaska, California, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, and Minnesota.
370 大多數的州在允許股東對公司提起直接訴訟時，通常有兩個要件：（1）在不法行為者與股
東間有特別責任存在，例如契約責任，以及（2）股東所受的損害必須是不同於其他股東而是 個別自身的損害。Heather Flanagan, The Difficulty Of A Plaintiff's Playground Being Truly "Open For Business": An Overview Of West Virginia's Corporate Law Governing Derivative Lawsuits, 110 W.VA.L.
REV. 883, 887 (Winter, 2008).
371 The American Law Institute, Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations
§7.01 (b): A direct action may be brought in the name and right of a holder to redress an injury sustain by, or enforce a duty owed to, the holder. An action in which the holder can prevail without
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
143
定：「直接訴訟得以股東之名義及股東之權利提起之，旨在補償股 東所受之損害或強制履行對股東之義務。股東若能在不須舉證公司 有受到損害或違反對公司之義務的前提下勝訴，即視為直接訴訟，
而且股東得以個人名義提起直接訴訟。」從上述規定可以知道，當 他人不法行為導致股東個人權利直接受到損害時，由於在法律的權 利主體上，股東與公司兩者係不同的，再加上公司並未受損害，故 股東無法提起代表訴訟。不過為了達到保障股東權利並填補其損害 之目的，於是允許股東以其自己名義直接對第三人提起訴訟救濟，
所以重點在於確保股東之個人權利，而非填補公司損害。
綜上所述，在美國就少數股東所得主張之救濟方法而言，美國 模範商業公司法雖賦予少數股東得主張解散裁判訴請權，但公司或 多數股東是否主張強制收買股份，仍應取決於公司或其他股東是否 向法院提出聲請，並非其義務。反觀美國各州公司法所規定之救濟 措施，則未盡相同，其方法主要包括少數股東之損害賠償請求權、
裁判解散訴請權及股份收買請求權等372。例如控制股東或經營者如 為權益凍結之壓迫時，德拉瓦州法院除經常賦予少數股東得行使股 份收買請求權外，亦可能同意其所提出之損害賠償請求373。此外，
法院亦得解任董事或經理人或指定管理人，甚至命令公司為盈餘分 派及賠償損失。再者，法院當然亦可能為裁判解散公司或命令公司 收買少數股東之股份。
美國麻州最高法院認為，閉鎖性公司股東間之關係與合夥關係 較為相近，因此股東間應互負受託義務，所以股東彼此間應盡「最 大的善意與忠誠」，並遵守「平等機會原則」374，轉變為具備「正 當之商業目的原則」375等標準。然而，德拉瓦州最高法院認為，股
showing an injury or breach of duty to the corporation should be treated as a direction that maintained by the holder in an individual capacity.
372 Robert A. Ragazzo, supra note 195, at 1117-1119.
373 Id. at 1147-1150.
374 所有股東均應該被平等對待。
375 為公司之最佳利益，法院又認為其已盡最大的善意，除非少數股東反正控制權股東可採其
他對少數股東傷害較小的途徑，一樣能達到該正當商業目的。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
144
東間並不互負受託義務，僅董事或控制股東對公司負受託義務，因 此只要考量董事之行為是否為公司之最佳利益即可，適用「經營判 斷原則」與「完全公允標準」376。上述是以股東對董事之司法審查 標準。而股東壓迫、不公平之行為之測試標準，是以合理期待與忠 實義務為測試原則。
第二項、 英國
一、 不公平侵害救濟制度（unfair prejudice remedy）
英國之少數股東救濟方式可分為代表訴訟（derivative action）
與直接訴訟（personal action）。在過去，代表訴訟一直受限於 Foss 原則377，運用上相當嚴格，導致股東難以提出。而直接訴訟中 1986 年破產法（Insolvency Act 1896）規範之「公正衡平解散司制度」
（just and equitable winding up），在第 122 條列舉得向法院聲請解 散之事由，更在該條第 1 項第 g 款賦予法院相當大之裁量權，凡其 認為解散公司是公平且符合平衡的，法院即可依聲請命令之378。另 外，同法第 79 條對於得提起第 122 條的出資人（contributory），規 定限於當公司解散時有責任對公司貢獻資產之人方屬之，換言之，
任何以全額支付股款之股東原則上並無聲請解散公司之權379。解散 公司對股東來說並沒有太大的實益且未必是最好保護方式，因為公 司資產價值並不大，且願意收購的人，多為行使壓迫之控制股東
376 林郁馨，前揭註 5，頁 147。
376 林郁馨，前揭註 5，頁 147。