法学论文论公司对外担保的效力.doc

论公司对外担保的效力 【中文摘要】公司对外担保的效力认定一直是理论界及实务界讨论的热点问题之一。公司与被担保人、债权人之间订立的担保合同效力如何,直接关系到相关当事人的切身利益及法律责任的归属。与1993年《公司法》对担保的规定相比较,2005年《公司法》有关担保的条文更具理性和科学性,但与《担保法》及《合同法》依然存在冲突之处。而这些冲突使得同类案件在不同地域的裁判机构甚至同一裁判机构的不同裁判者会做出截然相反的法律评价。从2005年《公司法》第16条第1款可以明确看出,公司在遵循相应程序的前提下可以对外提供担保。毋庸置疑,该规定对于鼓励交易、保障交易安全具有重要的积极意义。但是虽然公司的担保能力在立法层面上得到肯定,但其有效与否将受到公司章程、股东会或董事会决议以及担保数额等条件的限制;且在实践中,大多数公司在设立时对章程的重要性认识不足,往往出现章程对担保程序的规定存在瑕疵、决议机构错误以及董事、经理超越职权提供担保等行为。对于这些不规范行为所引发的担保合同的效力认定问题,2005年的《公司法》并没有明确界定。本文从公司的担保能力问题出发,在肯定公司具有对外担保能力的前提下,剖析了公司担保规则冲突的根源在于不同部门法所保护的利益主体有所不同:《公司法》侧重于保护投资者即股东的利益,而《担保法》及《合同法》则侧重于保护债权人的利益。同时本文也关注到了公司章程对担保效力的影响,论证并肯定了在特定情形下公司章程对第三人的对抗性。公司的不同形态及治理结构方面的差异对担保合同的效力会产生重大影响。本文分别论述了有限责任公司的人合性特征、股份有限公司特别是上市公司资合性的特征。然后结合不同特性的公司形态,详细分析论证了常见担保问题的效力认定:在有限责任公司背景下,公司的所有权和经营权是不分离的,公司的股东在承担投资风险的同时,也在紧密参与公司管理事务。对于公司的重大经营事项,股东是决策的积极参与者,即便在少数不参与决策的情况下,也是出于信任关系委托其他股东或由其他决议机构进行决策。故此,当出现担保瑕疵问题时,应当强调的是股东基于信任关系产生的责任担当,在担保合同效力认定上应倾向于选择保护债权人的利益;在股份有限公司特别是上市公司背景下,股东身份的取得以缴纳股款、购买股票为基础,而不取决于其与其他股东的人身关系。由于股东之间缺乏合作及信任基础,在资本多数决的制度下,中小股东处于弱势群体的地位。从保护价值的角度出发,资本市场的繁荣稳定对经济的推动作用要远远大于商品交易市场。就担保瑕疵问题而言,当投资者利益和债权人利益发生冲突时,应当加大债权人的交易风险来换取投资者的资产安全及投资信心,从而维护资本市场的稳定繁荣,即更应倾向于保护投资者股东的利益。在分析论证不同公司形态下常见担保问题的效力认定时,上述利益保护主体的选择是判断担保合同效力的主要依据。最后,本文从立法层面和实践层面对完善担保法律制度以及规范担保行为提出了意见和建议。 【英文摘要】The identification to legal validity of external guarantee by company is one of the most debated issues both in theory and practice. The legal force of the guarantee contract concluded by the company, the guaranteed party and the creditor affects the vital interests and the legal liabilities of the parties.Compared to the provisions to the guarantee in the of 1993, the provisions of the of 2005 are more rational and scientific, however, yet it is conflicted with the and the . Due to such conflicts, the courts in different places and even the individual judger of the same court would give total contrary judgments against the cases in the same nature.It can be seen from the Article 1 Provision 16 of the of 2005 that the company should provide the external guarantee only by the due process. It is no doublets that such provision is positive to encouraging the transitions and assuring the safety of business. The capability of providing guarantee of the company is confirmed by legislation, however, the validity is limited by the articles of incorporation, resolutions of the shareholder’s party and the director’s party and moreover in practice, most companies are not able to learn the full importance of the articles of incorporation when first established, which causes such acts as the defect provisions in the articles of incorporation regarding the guarantee and the wrong doing from the body of decision-making and the unauthorized guarantee from the directors and the manager. Regarding the issues of the guarantee contract identification those are caused by those non-normative acts, the of 2005 keeps silent.From the issues of the capability of providing guarantee by the company, this paper firstly confirms the capability of providing guarantee by the company and then analyses that the source of the conflicts of the rules to the guarantee by the company lies in that the individual law protects the interests of different parties. The company law protects the interests of the investors i.e. the shareholders, meanwhile, the and the focus on the interests of the creditors. On the same hand, this paper concerns the effect of the articles of incorporation of the company to the legal force of the guarantee and demonstrates and confirms the defence of the articles of incorporation against the third parties in certain cases.The different forms and administration structures of the company significantly affect the legal force of the guarantee contracts. This paper analyses both the human joining nature of the limited liabilities companies and the capital joining nature of the share limited companies, especially the public listed companies. Hereafter, based on the variety of the company forms, this paper analyses the identification to common issues of the validity of guarantee in details.In a limited liability company, the ownership and management of the company are inseparable which means the shareholders of the company both afford the risks of the investments and participate in the management of the company. The shareholders are the positive decision makers of the major business issues of the company and even in very rare cases that absent from making the decisions, the shareholders by trust authorize other shareholders or other management institutions to make the decision. Therefore, in the case of the defect of the guarantee, it should be taken in to account that the liabilities of the shareholders are generated by trust and in terms of identification of the validity of the guarantee, the creditor’s interests shall be protected.In a share limited company especially a public listed company, the shareholder qualification is acquired by paying the share price and buying the shares, but not by the person relationship between the other shareholders. Due to the lack of corporation and trust, under the capital majority rules, the minority shareholde