政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/96790
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50936810      Online Users : 961
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96790


    Title: 公司內部人自己交易的控制
    Other Titles: The Control of Corporate Insiders’ Self-Dealing
    Authors: 游啟璋
    Yu, Chi-Chang
    Keywords: 公平法則;公司內部人;公司治理;外部投資人保護;自己交易;利益迴避法則;利益衝突交易;協商成本;控制權股東;訴訟成本;策略性投票;關係人交易
    Fairness Test;Corporate Insider;Corporate Governance;Protection of Outside Investors;Self-Dealing;The Majority of the Minority Rule;Conflict of Interests Transaction;Negotiation Cost;Controlling Shareholders;Adjudication Cost;Strategic Voting;Related-Party Transaction
    Date: 2010-12
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 16:05:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 公司內部人不當的自己交易為公開公司最嚴重的代理問題。法律規範自己交易有採用公平法則，有採用利益迴避法則者，各有其效益及成本，公平法則有高昂的訴訟成本；而利益迴避法則有高昂的協商成本。協商成本及訴訟成本的高低，又受到司法制度及其他市場條件的影響。如果司法制度非常有效率，即使採用公平法則，訴訟成本也很低。但如果法院審判效率低，訴訟成本就很高。實務上，我國公司內部人不當的自己交易情形嚴重，仔細檢示，公司法相關規定的適用顯然是一種寬鬆的公平法則。衡量我國目前法院的負荷，採用公平法則，訴訟成本必然很高。因此，利益迴避法則應該才是真正符合我國目前社經及司法條件的法制。
    Corporate insiders may severely expropriate outside investors through self-dealing. The failure of controlling self-dealing undermines the confidence of outside investors in the stock market. Consequently, all outside investors exit the capital market and the stock market collapses. Corporate self-dealing may be controlled either by law or by market forces. Theoretically, a perfectly efficient market may provide a correct price reflecting the real value of securities offered by different corporations with or without the expropriation of outside investors. In reality, however, the market is not sufficiently efficient to accurately price different securities. As a result, legal rules are necessarily provided to control corporate self-dealing. Two rules may be considered for the control of self-dealing. A fairness test requires interested-insiders to demonstrate that the transaction is fair to the corporation. The other possible solution is the majority of the minority rule that excludes interested-insiders to vote. A fairness test may be applied efficiently only if a competent court possessing the necessary level of expertise exists. Whenever outside investors claim a transaction to be unfair to a corporation the judge should explore the facts promptly and make a precise evaluation. In other words, a court equipped with expertise of the sophisticated business world is essential to the success of this solution. Whether the fairness test or a majority of the minority rule is efficient depends on the legal and institutional conditions of a particular jurisdiction. Where the court is competent and trustworthy, the application of the fairness test can remove the risk of strategic voting. Where the court is incompetent and overburdened, the fairness test can result in chaos due to the court’s potential misjudgment of an efficient transaction to be an inefficient one and vice versa. As a result, a majority of the minority rule provides a more efficient protection for outside investors in this situation. In Taiwan, corporate law provides a lenient form of the fairness test whereby interested insiders may choose to apply the fairness test to a transaction when they vote in favor of it or choose to apply the majority of the minority rule when they decline themselves from voting. This eccentric design gives rise to inadequate protection of outside investors. Given that the court suffers from an overburdened caseload and lacks experience in complicated corporate issues the adoption of a majority of the minority rule may be preferable at current stages.
    Relation: 法學評論, 118, 271-330
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[Chengchi law review ] Journal Articles

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    118(271-330).pdf724KbAdobe PDF2666View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback