| 以下仅列出文章摘要、提纲简介，如需获取全文阅读权限，或原创定制、长期合作，请随时联系。 微信QQ:312050216 |
 |
 |
| 对赌协议的法律问题研究
摘 要
随着我国资本市场的日渐成熟，对赌协议也被投融资双方所需要，在交易过程中作为一个必不可少的工具。然而，对赌协议在我国实际的运作过程中，并没有具体的法律规范对其进行规制，从而在法学界引发各种争议。2012 年，最高法院通过“海富案”对对赌协议的法律效力立下裁判规则——与目标公司对赌无效，与股东对赌有效。在没有具体法律条文的规定下，各大法院便以最高院的裁判规则为裁判要旨。但是，在2019 年 4 月，江苏华工公司与扬锻公司纠纷案的发布，又开始动摇这一规则。随后，发布的《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称《九民纪要》）又明确了新的裁判要旨——投资人与目标公司的对赌协议原则上有效。因此，关于对赌协议所引发出来的一系列问题，如：性质方面应该如何去认定；如何解决对赌的履行问题等等，成为各大公司与法学界人士的重点关注对象，也带着这些问题，开始本篇论文的讨论。
在法律缺位的情况下，如何规避对赌协议在实际运用中发生的法律问题，成为本篇论文的研究重点，以“海富案”“瀚霖案”“华工案”入手，分析当前我国司法实务界对于对赌协议效力的认定，理清司法实务为何会出现“同案不同判”，再引出相关的问题。从理论的角度出发，判断对赌协议的法律性质，接着，总结出对赌协议所存在的问题。最后，在怎么规制对赌协议的问题上提出一些建议：如立法上明确对赌协议的合法地位，解决司法实务中适用的困扰；借鉴适用优先股制度，为对赌协议的应用创造良好的环境；提倡采用仲裁方式解决纠纷，更好尊重对赌双方的意愿；制定渐进式动态对赌目标，既降低融资方的损失，又充分的体现了我国商事领域中的公平原则；改变以往的一次性履约，创新对赌协议履约模式，缓解公司短期承担巨额对赌赔偿责任后所带来的财务压力。
关键词：对赌协议；法律性质；优先股；仲裁；履约模式
Abstract
With the gradual maturity of China's capital market,bet agreement is also needed by both sides of investment and financing, as an indispensable tool in the transaction process. However, in the actual operation process of the gambling agreement in China,there is no specific legal norms to regulate it, which causes various disputes in the legal circle. In 2012, the Supreme Court established the judgment rule of "effective gambling with shareholders, invalid gambling with target company". In the absence of the law, the Supreme Court on the application of the definition of thegambling agreement has played a guiding role, after that,the major courts on the settlement of the dispute of the gambling agreement will take this as the gist of the judgment. However, in April 2019, Jiangsu Huagong Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Yangzhou Forging Machine Tool Co., Ltd.and pan Yunhu, etc.issued the retrial civil judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "disputecase between Jiangsu Huagong company and Yangzhou forging company") to request the company to purchase shares, which started to shake this rule again. Then, the minutes of the national court civil and commercial trial work meeting (hereinafter referred to as the minutes of the Ninth People's court) also made it clear that "thegambling agreement between the investor and the target company is effective in principle". Therefore, the problems caused by the gambling agreement,such as: how to identify the nature;how to solve the problem of the performance of gambling, and so on, should be solved by the legal circle of our country at present. Moreover, these problems are also the focus of this paper.
With the lack of legal regulation,this paper analyzes the attitudeof the judicial practitioners to the gambling agreement, that is, affirming the effectiveness of the target company's gambling, clarifying the reasons for the attitude change of the judicial practitioners, and then leads to related problems . From a theoretical point of view,judge the legal nature of the gambling agreement, and then summarize the problems of the gambling agreement. Finally, some suggestions on how to regulate the gambling agreement are put forward,such as clarifying the legal status of the gambling agreement in legislation to solve the problems in the application of judicial practice;using the preferred stock system for reference to create a good environment for the application of the gambling agreement; advocating the use of arbitration to solve disputes and better respect the wishes of both sides of the gambling; formulating progressive dynamic gambling goals, that is to say Reducing the loss of the financing party fully reflects the principle of fairness in the commercial field of our country; changing the previous one-time performance, innovating the performance mode of the gambling agreement, alleviating the financial pressure brought by the company's short-term undertaking of huge gambling compensation liability.
Keywords: gambling agreement; legal nature; preferred stock; arbitration; performance mode
|
