论文总字数：25527字

摘 要

公司僵局是现代商事经济主体常见的困境，公司无法摆脱人合性的性质，股东之间信任基础丧失，带来公司经营管理停滞，最终使得公司陷入僵局。因公司僵局受损的不仅是股东的利益，其他的商事主体以及社会经济都会受到不利影响。

本文通过研究公司僵局，探讨公司僵局的理论知识、判断标准以及救济制度。分析其他国家的解决措施，提出解决僵局的建议。

《公司法》第一百八十二条：“公司经营管理发生严重困难，继续存续会使股东利益受到重大损失，通过其他途径不能解决的，持有公司全部股东表决权百分之十以上的股东，可以请求人民法院解散公司。”公司僵局是公司人合性带来的弊端，带有封闭性质的公司中股东长期存在无法调和的矛盾，凭借自身拥有的权利，最终使得董事会等决策机构无法召开或者是无法形成有效决议，带来公司陷入僵局的后果。公司法赋予公司僵局困境中的股东寻求司法救济的方式，但是公司僵局的认定是公司解散的基础，并且以直接解散一个公司作为解决股东之间矛盾的代价，未免过于残酷。判断公司僵局的基本标准是公司管理僵局。依据《公司法》司法解释二，可以解散公司情形为：连续两年未召开股东会或其他决策制定机关，股东不能形成有效决议，公司股东之间的矛盾无法解决或者是其他情况。公司的司法解散制度是否适用于公司僵局的解决？司法解释（二）列举的情形是否可以直接作为认定公司僵局的标准？

通过阅读大量民事判决裁定书，发现司法实践中公司僵局的认定主要分为三个部分：1.公司陷入管理僵局；2.使得股东利益受到严重损失；3.无其他解决方法。其中公司管理僵局则是多以实质标准进行判断，由于不同法官对于实质管理僵局的认定不同，司法实践中对僵局的判断具有多样性，这一方面赋予了法官自由裁量权，以便更好地处理个别案件，另一方面可能会使得实践中司法判决不一，带来司法判决混乱的后果。

针对认定的第一项标准，笔者强调实质标准即公司管理出现严重困难才是判断公司僵局的真正标准。对于实际经营中的公司而言，公司由于其人合性不可避免的存在障碍，但是公司僵局的障碍限定在严重的管理僵局。连续两年不开会不等于公司僵局的成立，必须从实质标准入手判断公司僵局是否成立。第三项认定标准则是从救济措施角度出发，如何认定没有其他救济措施也是一大难题，笔者认为其他措施指的是股东分红请求权，异议股东回购请求权以及股东自愿转让股权等救济措施，而不能够仅仅从双方是否协商成功来判断是否存在其他救济措施。

笔者依据法院是否参入公司僵局的处理，将解决措施分成两类，即程序性救济措施和实体性救济措施。首先，程序性救济措施包括两类，即双方股东达成合意的调解或者是裁定具体的权利义务。实体性救济措施则是股东利润分配请求权等权利。公司僵局中，利益分配是股东之间产生冲突和摩擦的重要原因之一。同时，利润分配不均或者是无法分配也是公司僵局产生的严重后果之一。在此情况下，该制度可以有效地解决股东之间的利益冲突。其次，笔者单独将公司司法解散制度单独讨论。司法解散制度在处理公司僵局问题上存在优势，在公司僵局已经达到无法维系公司生存的程度时，直接解散公司。公司法人人格被消灭，最终达到解决公司僵局的目的。但是这一制度存在巨大的弊端，通过参考最高法院的判决裁定书，笔者认为目前通过司法解散制度解散公司并没有从根本上解决公司僵局。但是直接消灭公司不等于化解股东之间的矛盾，对于公司僵局这一法律困境来说，直接解散公司属于治标不治本的救济措施。

公司僵局最早规定在美国商法中，其理论体系、司法实践较为成熟。将我国公司僵局制度进行横向比较，发现制度不足之处。参考美国、德国以及日本的相关司法措施，建议我国建立强制股权置购制度。同时，建议法院适用司法解散制度时，提高公司盈利情况的权重。以维持公司存在为基础，从股东层面解决公司僵局，从本质解决问题。并且提出公司章程中应当对公司股东的矛盾作出预见性的救济措施，比如事先规定股东会出现僵局应当进行调解或者是规定由中间股东或者由监事会介入，若僵局仍无法化解再采取司法救济方式。

基于以上分析，我国目前公司僵局现象已经十分普遍，在我国司法实践基础上，参考国外制度经验以及司法实践，从而改善公司生存的法治环境，促进我国法治进步，社会发展。

关键词：公司僵局 股东权益保护 司法解散 强制股权置购

On company deadlock and its judicial remedy

Abstract

Company deadlock is a common predicament of modern commercial economic subjects. The company cannot get rid of its humanness. The loss of trust between shareholders leads to the stagnation of the company's management, which eventually leads to the company's deadlock. It is not only the interests of shareholders but also other business entities and the social economy that are affected by the deadlock.

Through the study of corporate deadlock, this paper discusses the theoretical knowledge, judgment criteria and relief system of corporate deadlock. Analyze the solutions of other countries and make Suggestions for resolving the deadlock.

Article 182 of the company law says, "if serious difficulties arise in the operation and management of the company, and the continued existence of the company will cause significant losses to shareholders' interests, which cannot be resolved through other means, the shareholders holding more than 10 percent of the voting rights of all shareholders of the company may request the people's court to dissolve the company." Company deadlock is a disadvantage brought by the company's humanness. The shareholders in a closed company have irreconcilable contradictions for a long time. By virtue of their own rights, the board of directors and other decision-making bodies cannot convene or form effective resolutions, resulting in the company's deadlock. The company law gives the shareholders in the company deadlock a way to seek judicial relief, but the company deadlock is the basis for the dissolution of the company, and it is too cruel to directly dissolve a company as the price to solve the contradictions among the shareholders. The basic criterion to judge company deadlock is company management deadlock. The second judicial interpretation of the company law provides for the application of the judicial dissolution of the company system, including: no shareholders' meeting or other decision-making organs have been convened for two consecutive years, the shareholders cannot form effective resolutions, and the contradictions among the shareholders of the company cannot be resolved or other situations. Does the company's judicial dissolution system apply to the resolution of the company deadlock? Can the situations listed in judicial interpretation (ii) be directly used as the criteria for determining company deadlock?

Through reading a large number of civil judgment and order books, it is found that the determination of company deadlock in judicial practice is mainly divided into three parts: 1. 2. Caused serious losses to shareholders' interests; 3. There is no other solution. Part of company management deadlock is more essential standard to judge, because different judge stalemate for substantial management decided that, the diversity of the judgment of the deadlock in the judicial practice, it gives the judge discretion on one hand, in order to better deal with the individual case, on the other hand may make different in the practice of judicial decisions, judicial decisions chaotic consequences.

In view of the first criterion, the author emphasizes that the essential criterion, that is, the serious difficulties in the management of the company, is the real criterion to judge the deadlock of the company. For the actual operation of the company, there are inevitable obstacles due to the company's conformity, but the obstacles of corporate deadlock are limited to serious management deadlock. No meeting for two consecutive years is not equal to the establishment of the company deadlock, we must judge the establishment of the company deadlock from the substantive criteria. The third standards from the perspective of remedies, there is no other remedy how is also a big problem, the author thinks that other measures refers to the shareholders' right of claim of share out bonus, dissent shareholders claim to repurchase and relief measures, such as voluntary transfer of equity and can not only from the two sides is successfully negotiate to determine whether there is any other remedies.

According to whether the court is involved in the company deadlock, the author divides the solution measures into two categories: litigation relief measures and non-litigation relief measures. First of all, the non-litigation relief measures include two categories, one is to enable the two shareholders to reach an agreement or to determine the specific rights and obligations. The other kind is the shareholder profit distribution claim and other rights. Interest distribution is one of the important causes of conflicts and frictions among shareholders in corporate deadlock. At the same time, profit distribution is uneven or unable to be distributed is one of the serious consequences of the deadlock. In this case, the system can effectively resolve the conflicts of interest between shareholders. Secondly, the author takes the company's judicial dissolution system as a lawsuit relief measure. The judicial dissolution system has advantages in dealing with the deadlock of the company. When the deadlock of the company has reached the point where the survival of the company cannot be maintained, the company is dissolved directly. The company's legal person personality was eliminated, and the company's deadlock was finally resolved. However, this system has huge drawbacks. By referring to the Supreme Court's decision and order, the author believes that the company dissolution through the judicial dissolution system has not fundamentally solved the deadlock of the company. However, the direct elimination of the company is not the same as the solution to the contradiction between shareholders. For the legal dilemma of company deadlock, the direct dissolution of the company is a temporary remedy rather than a permanent remedy.

The company deadlock was first stipulated in American commercial law, and its theoretical system and judicial practice are relatively mature. The paper makes a horizontal comparison of the company deadlock system in China, and finds the deficiency of the system. Referring to the relevant judicial measures in the United States, Germany and Japan, it is suggested that China should establish a mandatory share purchase system. At the same time, it is suggested that the court should increase the weight of the company's profitability when applying the judicial dissolution system. On the basis of maintaining the existence of the company, solve the deadlock of the company from the shareholder level and solve the problem from the essence. In addition, it proposes that the company's articles of association should provide predictable relief measures for the conflicts among shareholders, for example, it should stipulate in advance that the shareholders' meeting should mediate in case of deadlock, or that intermediate shareholders or the board of supervisors should intervene. If the deadlock cannot be resolved, the company should resort to judicial relief.

Based on the above analysis, the phenomenon of company deadlock has been very common in China. On the basis of judicial practice in China, we should refer to the institutional experience and judicial practice in other countries, so as to improve the legal environment for companies, promote the progress of the rule of law and social development in China

Key words: company deadlock；shareholders' equity protection；judicial dissolution；compulsory equity purchase

目录

摘要 I

Abstract IV

引言 1

（一）选题背景以及意义 1

（二）研究方法 2

1.比较研究方法 2

2.实证研究方法 2

3.法律解释方法 2

一、公司僵局概述 3

（一）我国公司僵局制度 3

（二）其他国家制度 3

（三）公司僵局成因 4

（四）公司僵局特征 5

1、管理层长期存在矛盾 5

2、公司长期处于停滞状态 5

3、产生严重后果 5

二、公司僵局认定 8

（一）公司的经营管理出现困难 8

（二）利益将遭受重大损失 9

（三）通过其他途径已难以解决 10

三、我国公司僵局的救济方法 11

（一）程序性救济措施 11

1.仲裁 11

2.调解 11

3. 司法解散 11

（二）实体性救济措施 11

1.利润分配请求权 12

2.异议股东回购请求权 12

四、司法解散制度 14

五、公司僵局的其他思考 15

（一）其他国家的制度 15

1.美国 15

2.德国 15

请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：25527字