我國於2001年通過金融控股公司法（以下簡稱金控法）以來，迄今已逾十年，金融控股公司（以下簡稱金控）之家數已達16家，其中所整合的金融機構型態包含銀行、證券、保險、投信等相關事業等，多達9 0家以上，子公司之總數量高達100家，顯見金控為增加其股東及公司利益、擴展事業體等目的，而對於併購活動日益頻繁。 依據金控發動併購時是否已取得目標金融機構的同意，可區分為合意收購或非合意收購之屬性，然金控是否均適合兩種屬性？本文藉由金控收購的相關法制深入研究本議題。金控收購子公司之法制歷經三次重大修訂，爰將歷次更迭區分為三個階段分別論述，配合實務上真實發生之個案進行研析，論究金控收購子公司之成敗因素，亦即，本文藉由法制演繹、文獻整合、案例分析之研究方法，探究我國金控法收購子公司之法制，並提出結論與建議。

股東權益與意見在公司治理中屬重要一環，否則少數公司決策者（例如董事會或公司的CEO）會過度左右企業資源的分配，甚至發生浪費、貪污等代理問題，進而損及小股東權益，甚至勞工權益。本論文以公司治理的基本概念及架構為基礎，並以惡意併購的個案作為案例，探討並說明股東行動主義的經濟與法律意涵。其中，主要就「金融控股公司依金融控股公司法申請轉投資審核原則」法規設計，選擇具代表性個案，探討個案公司於股東治理的基礎規範與相關運作程序，包括非合意併購、委託書爭奪戰等相關法律問題。若根據目前台灣上市/櫃公司，其公司治理的實施狀況，許多法律學者均認為職業股東屬必要之罪，委託書是在目前公司所有權與經營權不分下，可能的外部監督力量。目前台灣委託書的相關規定過於保護大股東、公司派，導致小股東的權益受到一定程度的損害。若能自由化委託書收購，並且讓委託書可以在自由市場買賣，如此所創造的市場機制，據委託書的價格及外部市場機制，對於台灣過度依賴大股東或管理階層的公司治理結構會產生顯著改善效果，有效提升公司治理。本論文所選擇的個案公司，可以充分顯現上述這些方面的法律與經濟意涵。另外一個好的金融控股公司合併政策有賴一個健全之法律制度加以配套。針對金控公司是否得以所謂非合意併購達成合併之目的，金管會僅以行政命令「金融控股公司依金融控股公司法申請轉投資審核原則」與「公開收購公開發行公司有價證券管理辦法」作為主要法源，在法律上之位階上似乎有將行政命令之位階提高至法律位階之必要，本文以個案公司為例探討其相關法律問題。 關鍵字：公司治理、委託書、非合意併購、代理理論、價購委託書 / Shareholder’s interests play an important role in corporate governance. Otherwise, few decision-makers (ex. Board members, directors, etc) might misuse corporate assets and abuse in related party transactions in which interests of minority shareholders and employees will be jeopardized. This thesis will explore synergies of shareholder’s activism based on basic concepts and framework of corporate governance. In particular, case studies will focus on related regulations and practicable mechanisms of corporate governance in which certain legal issues, such as hostile takeover and proxy battle, will be elaborated based on ‘Principles of supervising investment application from financial holding companies’. Related regulations of proxy rights in Taiwan tend to protect interests of major shareholders and result in negative impacts of minority shareholders. If purchase offers of proxy could be freely traded in public, marketing mechanisms will balance the distortion of major shareholders and enhance the essence of corporate governance effectively. Case studies in this thesis therefore will reflect the above-mentioned legal and business implications. In addition, merge policies of financial conglomerate need supplementally sound regulations. In Taiwan, legal sources in financial holding companies are based on “Principles of supervising investment application from financial holding companies “ and “Regulations Governing Tender Offers for Purchase of the Securities of a Public Company “ issued by Financial Supervisory Committee of Executive Yuan. Positions of legal sources, in which case studies will be reviewed, seemingly need to be upgraded from administrative to legal level. Key word: Corporate Governance, Proxy,Hostile takeover,Agency Theory, Proxy Buying

現代公司走向公開發行後，公司由廣大而分散的投資股東所有，投資股東雖擁有公司所有權，卻無多餘的心力與能力去參與公司經營，公司經營交由專業經營者，於是產生企業經營與所有分離之情況，在企業經營與所有分離下，股東與經營者間乃出現代理問題，為解決代理問題，本人勢必要付出代理成本，近年來十分熱門的公司治理議題亦致力於降低代理成本問題，並從董事責任之加強著手，故而建立與釐清董事之受任人義務內涵，乃一重要的課題。 董事之受任人義務內涵，可分為注意義務與忠實義務兩個子義務，前者主要著重於董事之行為標準，後者則是關於董事與公司間有利益衝突時，董事應以公司利益為先之義務。本文先就美國相關規定分析介紹，再進一步探討我國公司法就董事受任人義務規範之不足之處，以提出相關建議。接著本文就董事對股東揭露義務將特予介紹，蓋股東必須在充足資訊揭露下才能做出最適的決定，而董事不僅是能以最低成本提供股東資訊者，且從董事與股東之受託人關係觀之，亦可作為應為股東利益最大化而提供資訊之合理性基礎。 董事相關受任人義務內涵在併購過程中是否會有所不同，亦為本文關注之重點，故區分為合意併購與敵意併購兩種情況加以分析。合意併購時著重於探討董事如何於併購過程中為公司及股東爭取最佳的利益，並藉由分析我國實務判決提出若干建議。敵意併購時則著重分析目標公司董事採行之防禦措施適法性，期能藉由參考美國實務上審查標準，將來可引用作為我國處理相關案例之一套準據。 / When corporations go public, a large number of investment shareholders who separate around everywhere own the corporation. Because shareholders don’t have enough time and talent to corporate the company, they deliver the works to professional managers. It appears “Separation of business and all”. At the same time, there come conflicts of interest between the principal and the agent, which called agency problems. In order to produce the agency problems, the principal has to pay for some costs which called agency costs. Recently, the popular corporate governance issue has emphasized the importance of the liabilities of the directors. Hence, to figure out how to build directors’ responsibilities and to know the content of fiduciary duty of the directors is a significant issue. Fiduciary duty of the directors consists of two sub content: duty of care and duty of loyalty. The former focuses on the level of attention of the directors take when they conduct. And the later focuses on when it faces the conflicts of interest between the company and the directors, the directors should take the company’s interest for priority. In this paper, I try to analysis the lack of the fiduciary duty standard in our country through comparing the U.S relevant standard, and to give some personal suggestion. Then I want to introduce the obligation of disclose of the directors. Because the shareholders need plenty of information to help them making informed decisions. Usually the directors can provide information under relatively low cost, and the fiduciary relationship between the directors and the shareholders gives a good reason to provide any necessary information to improve the shareholders’ best interest. If the fiduciary duty of the directors would be different during the takeover process is also what this paper wants to emphasize. In this paper I divided takeover into merger agreement and hostile takeover, and discuss under these two kind of takeover how should the directors conduct to meet the duty. When talking about merger agreement I focus on how the directors to seek for the best interest of the company and the shareholders during the whole merger course. And I try to give some suggestion through discussing one court judgment. Finally, when talking about hostile takeover I will emphasize on the anti-takeover conducts which the directors make, and try to analysis these conducts’ legality. Meanwhile I hope that with critiques and dissertations from American scholars and experts as reference can provide our court some useful and specific criterion in the future.

企業透過併購（Merger & Acquisition）以追求外部成長，是當前全球化競爭趨勢下，企業管理不可或缺的一環。而在併購行為之中，敵意併購（Hostile Takeover）因為雙方陣營在過程中的對抗，攻防雙方所使用的手段往往遊走於法律邊緣，因此法律規範的釐清實有其必要，本文之主軸即係將研究重點置於各該法律領域與敵意併購相關聯處之討論及分析。 本論文共分為七大部分。第一部份為緒論。第二部分為敵意併購概說，首先對併購及敵意併購作一簡介，並說明敵意併購得以促成公司控制權市場的形成，為公司治理體系中一個極為重要的外部監控手段。其次介紹三角合併及融資兼併，前者於敵意併購時，得以切割併購公司與被併公司，控制風險；敵意併購亦得以融資兼併為之，透過三角合併，將併購資金之融資負債轉移予被併公司。再者，金融業的併購法規較為特殊而嚴格，但金控轉投資及保險公司轉投資的法令規範寬嚴不一，前者嚴而後者寬，不僅獨厚旗下有保險子公司的金控而有公平性的疑慮，更使得主管機關對於金控的併購案無法有效管理，並不妥當。最後，敵意併購可能產生內線交易問題，本文加以討論，並分析中信併兆豐一案中的內線交易疑雲。 第三部分討論委託書之徵求，介紹我國法及美國法的委託書規範，並作一分析與檢討。本研究認為徵求門檻有其價值，得以減輕代理問題，避免控制權與盈餘分配請求權大幅偏離。而委託書徵求的公平性問題，包括股東名簿、紀念品發放、以及機構投資人的表決權行使問題，都有偏袒公司經營者的問題，宜予檢討改進。價購委託書方面，本文認為由於囚犯理論，經營者的公司控制權與現金流量權將因委託書收購而呈現大幅偏離，增加其掏空公司的誘因，並且收購委託書將扭曲公司控制權市場的樣貌，損害公司治理。因此現行禁止收購委託書之規範，宜予維持。 第四部分介紹公開收購及其他收購目標公司股份之法律規範。除集中市場的交易方式外，公開收購是敵意併購者收購股權的重要方式，其中強制收購制度之採行與否，學界眾說紛紜，外國立法例也各有不同。本文認為，英式強制收購將扼殺有效率的併購，對於亟需以併購強化產業競爭力的我國而言，並不妥當；而我國法下的強制收購制度實為限制短期取得大量股權的交易方式，為他國立法例所無，卻巧妙地在不過分阻礙併購的前提下，使所有股東得以平等分享控制權溢價，有其可取之處。 第五部分為介紹多樣化的反收購策略。首先介紹美國實務上多樣化的反收購策略，如毒藥丸等等，再探討前述防禦策略於我國法下適用的可能性。其次介紹我國企業慣於採行的反收購策略，包括買回庫藏股、交叉持股、稀釋對方股權、妨礙股東會開會、假處分等等，並對實務上運作的弊病以及法令的缺失，進行探討。 第六部分是討論各國對於敵意併購的法律政策立場，首先介紹美國的併購歷史、反併購州法的發展、以及美國法院對於反收購策略的立場及其審查基準，原則上美國法院賦予經營者較大的權限採行反併購措施。其次介紹歐盟的公開收購指令，其要求公開收購時董事會必須保持中立，任何可能阻礙收購的措施必須經過股東會決議方得採行。日本法方面，主管機關的立場及法院於Livedoor案的見解，似有模仿美國法的傾向。於面臨敵意併購時，我國應採行美國法的董事會優先主義（director primacy）或是歐盟的股東優先主義（shareholder primacy），本文認為，股東優先主義在資訊充分揭露的前提下，得以消弭目標公司股東與經營團隊之間，及目標公司股東與併購者之間的利益衝突，應是較適宜採行的。 第七部分為結論。

2016年全球半導體產值約 3,270 億美元，台灣半導體產值佔全球的23%，繼續蟬聯全球第二大半導體產業大國，排行僅次於美國。此外，台灣以出口為導向，根據我國財政部統計，2017上半年積體電路出口金額占整體出口總值的27.6%，是我國最主要的出口產品，可見半導體產業對台灣的影響力不言而喻。 近年來半導體併購浪潮興起，台灣廠商也無法置身事外，最受矚目非日月光與矽品的非合意併購案莫屬。一般學術論文對於非合意併購案的探討，著重於併購前的動機與併購後的綜效，鮮少討論雙方在併購過程中的攻防。故本研究欲以動態競爭觀點，並考量政府對併購成敗的影響，來找出矽品最後同意日月光共組控股公司之提案的原因，並分析此合併案對全球封測產業所造成的影響。 本研究發現雙方在合併前，應用產品及地區的市場共同性，分別呈現上升及下降趨勢，透過收購矽品，日月光不僅能追趕其主要競爭對手在車用電子的領先地位，更可以降低營收過度集中於北美的風險。另外，雙方在台灣及中國的專利申請數量有下降趨勢，但在美國專利的申請數有明顯增加且資源相似性也呈上升趨勢，故推論日月光收購矽品可鞏固其在北美市場的領導地位。總而言之，雖然日矽合併案被外界視為雙贏結果，但客戶轉單、中國商務部的限制條件及收購溢價偏高可能使得此合併綜效有限。在面對中國封測產商崛起、封測產業的市場集中度上升及半導體產業中下游界限越來越不明確的情況下，雙方合併為必然之勢。 / The worldwide semiconductor market grew 1.1% in 2016 to $338.9 billion USD, in which Taiwan accounts for 23% of the total output. Taiwan continues to rank as the world's second largest semiconductor industry, with the first being America. Taiwan is export oriented, and from the statistical data provided by the Ministry of Finance, the shipment of integrated circuit exports accounted for 27.6% of gross export value in the first two quarters of 2017. This indicates that integrated circuit is an important export product and that the semiconductor industry is of great importance to Taiwan. The recent and unprecedented M&A waves in the semiconductor industry caused major changes and created impact on Taiwanese semiconductor firm. The recent case that drew most attention is the M&A between ASE (Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc.) and SPIL (Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd). While most academic theses focus on the acquiring firm’s motive and post-M&A synergy, the offense and defense strategies during the M&A process are rarely explored. This research aims to focus on reasons why SPIL agreed on ASE’s proposal to form a joint venture holding company and the impact on the global OSAT (Outsourced Semiconductor Assembly and Test) industry after this M&A. This thesis utilized the dynamic competitive perspective and identifies government’s impact on M&A. The study finds that before the merger, the commonality of product shows an upward trend while the commonality of region market presents a downward direction. This merger not only assists ASE to catch up with its leading competitors in the automotive electronics sectors, but also reduce the revenue concentration risk, given that its major sales is in North America. In addition, the number of patents filed by both companies in Taiwan and China has declined, but the number in the United States has increased significantly along with an escalating resource similarity. Therefore, the research concludes that the acquisition of SPIL can consolidate ASE’s leading position in the North American market. To sum up, the merger of ASE and SPIL is regarded as win-win outcome. However, the M&A has risks, such as customer attrition, restriction from The Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM) and merger overpayment. Such uncertainties may reduce synergy. Nevertheless, in the face of the rise of China's OSAT business, the market concentration of OSAT industry, and the increasingly unclear boundary between the middle and downstream firms, the merger of the two firms is inevitable.