美国实质合并理论的发展 —以债权人保护为视角
The Development of De Facto Merger Doctrine in America
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
实质合并原则是指对通过法定合并以外形式达到合并效果、避开股东和债权人保护程序的资产收购行为准用法定合并规则。基于公平对待实质相同交易中的利益相关人理念，实质合并原则诞生之初是为了保护异议股东评估权。在落实股东保护之后，判例开始将实质合并原则运用于债权人保护领域，并将其纳入企业继受者责任范畴。随后，以实质合并为由所产生的企业承继者责任之适用范围日益扩大，除产品责任领域，环境及劳动人事方面也有所涉及。近年来，法院对于实质合并原则的适用并非机械性地套用四个判断要素，而在于依据具体事实分析交易内在达到的目的和效果，其灵活性大大增强。厘清美国实质合并原则的适用规则，有助于对我国企业“走出去”进行境外资产收购交易有所借鉴，降低中国企业境外并购风险。
Abstract
The de facto merger doctrine refers that, when an asset acquisition leads to the same result as a statutory merger, which avoids the protection procedures of shareholders and creditors, these transactions are demanded to be constrained by the same rights as in the statutory merger. Based on the concept of the fair treatment of stakeholders in the same transaction, the de facto merger doctrine was born to protect the evaluation of dissident shareholders. After the implementation of shareholder protection, the jurisprudence began to apply the doctrine to the field of creditor protection and incorporated it into the scope of successor liability. Subsequently, the scope of application of successor liability arising from substantive mergers is expanding, including in the area of product liability, environment and labor and personnel matters. In recent years, the court's application of the doctrine does not mechanically ues four elements of de facto merger doctrine, but rather analyzes the purpose and effect inherent in the transaction based on specific facts, and its flexibility is greatly enhanced. Clarifying the rules of the US de facto merger doctrine will help to draw lessons for Chinese enterprises doing “going out” asset acquisition transactions overseas and reduce the risk of overseas mergers and acquisitions.
참고문헌 (12)
- 陈国奇, "事实合并理论研究", 政治与法律, (8) (2008)
- 彭冰, "美国法上的继受人责任", 环球法律评论, (2) (2008)
- 肖忆雪, "资产收购中股东、债权人、公司的利益平衡——美国事实合并理论的启示", 江西社会科学, (5) (2018)
- Friedrich K. Juenger, "Asseets Sales and Products Liability", Wayne L. Rev, 22, pp.39~ (1975)
- Farris v. Glen Alden Corp, "393 Pa. 427, 438, 143 A.2d 25, 3", ~ (1958)
- 王宇, "公司重大资产交易中的股东权利保护——以实质合并原则为中心", 商事法论集, (02) (2008)
- "Fizzano Brothers Concrete Products, INC. v. XLN, Inc., 42 A.3d 951.962(Pa 2012)", ~ (2012)
- JOYNE III,G,WILLIAM, "Beyond Budd Tire, Examining Corporate SuccessorSuccessor Liability in North carolina", Wake Forest Law Review, 30, pp.906~ (1995)
- "Knapp v. North American Rockwell Corp., 506 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1974)", ~ (1974)
- "Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services,.L.P., 785 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2015)", ~ (2015)
- Cecile C Edwards, "Of Equity, Continuation and the De Facto Merger Doctrine: Reflections on Mississippi Law and Successor Liabilty", Miss. C. L. Rec, 20, pp.307~ (2000)
- David P. Dyer, "Successor Liability in Corporate Acquisition – An Examination of Attempts to Limit the use of the De Facto Merger Doctrine", J. Air L. & Corn, 46, pp.483~494 (1981)