论文部分内容阅读
针对现实中时有扩大的恶意利用公司有限责任逃避债务侵害债权人现象,我国法院在不损害公司法完整体系的前提下,尝试着吸收并借鉴国外盛行的公司法人人格否认制度,以揭开公司的法人面纱,向公司幕后的实际控制人“直索”责任。然而,这一做法在侵权与契约债权诉讼当中往往存在着“悖论”。从法经济学视角,围绕公司法的资本确定、资本维持和资本不变三大资本制度,探析造成这些悖论的原因,有助于深度剖析我国创业板上市公司直接退市制度的公平与效率的法律冲突问题。如果上市时重视的是效率,那么退市时就要更多地体现公平的法律衡平。
In the light of the fact that in reality, there is an increasing use of the limited liability of corporations to evade the debt infringement on creditors, the courts in our country try to absorb and draw lessons from the denial of corporate personality prevalent in foreign countries without revealing the integrity of corporate law, Corporate veil, the actual controller behind the company “Straight ” responsibility. However, this practice often has “paradox ” in infringement and contractual claims litigation. From the perspective of law and economics, focusing on the three capital systems of the Company Law, Capital Confirmation and Capital Independence, the reasons for causing these paradoxes are helpful to deeply analyze the fairness and efficiency of the direct delisting system of listed companies in China’s GEM The issue of legal conflicts. If listing is focused on efficiency, the fair legal balance should be reflected more in the delisting.