Esta dissertação estuda os mecanismos disponibilizados pelo artigo 264 da Lei das Sociedades Anônimas para proteção adicional dos interesses e dos direitos dos acionistas minoritários na incorporação de companhia controlada. Para tanto, são abordados os dispositivos legais, os posicionamentos doutrinários e as interpretações da jurisprudência administrativa e judicial sobre o assunto no Brasil. O primeiro capítulo do estudo analisa o conceito e a natureza jurídica da incorporação, a substituição de ações e de direitos dos acionistas na operação, o procedimento de incorporação, e a relação de controle existente entre as companhias incorporadora e incorporada. O segundo capítulo analisa a evolução histórica das disposições do artigo 264, partindo do Projeto de Lei que lhe deu origem até o texto do dispositivo atualmente vigente. O terceiro capítulo analisa a proteção adicional oferecida ao acionista minoritário pelo caput do artigo 264, atrelada à relação de substituição de ações adotada na operação. O quarto capítulo analisa a proteção adicional conferida ao acionista minoritário pelo §3º do artigo 264, vinculada ao direito de recesso na operação. Ao final, a conclusão arremata as principais discussões identificadas ao longo do estudo. / This thesis studies the mechanisms provided by Article 264 of the Brazilian Corporations Law for additional protection of the interests and rights of minority shareholders in the merger of a subsidiary corporation into its parent corporation. To this end, we discuss the legal provisions, the legal literature and the interpretations of administrative and judicial case law on the subject in Brazil. The first chapter of the study analyzes the concept and the legal nature of a merger, the substitution of shares and rights of the shareholders in the transaction, the merger procedure, and the control relationship that exists between the parent corporation and its subsidiary. The second chapter analyzes the historical development of the provisions of Article 264, from the bill from which it originated to the text of the provision currently in force. The third chapter analyzes the additional protection granted to minority shareholders by the chapeau of Article 264, regarding the share exchange ratio adopted in the transaction. The fourth chapter analyzes the additional protection afforded to minority shareholders by paragraph 3 of Article 264, relating to the right to withdraw from the transaction. Finally, the conclusion finalizes the main discussions identified throughout the study.

Esta dissertação estuda os mecanismos disponibilizados pelo artigo 264 da Lei das Sociedades Anônimas para proteção adicional dos interesses e dos direitos dos acionistas minoritários na incorporação de companhia controlada. Para tanto, são abordados os dispositivos legais, os posicionamentos doutrinários e as interpretações da jurisprudência administrativa e judicial sobre o assunto no Brasil. O primeiro capítulo do estudo analisa o conceito e a natureza jurídica da incorporação, a substituição de ações e de direitos dos acionistas na operação, o procedimento de incorporação, e a relação de controle existente entre as companhias incorporadora e incorporada. O segundo capítulo analisa a evolução histórica das disposições do artigo 264, partindo do Projeto de Lei que lhe deu origem até o texto do dispositivo atualmente vigente. O terceiro capítulo analisa a proteção adicional oferecida ao acionista minoritário pelo caput do artigo 264, atrelada à relação de substituição de ações adotada na operação. O quarto capítulo analisa a proteção adicional conferida ao acionista minoritário pelo §3º do artigo 264, vinculada ao direito de recesso na operação. Ao final, a conclusão arremata as principais discussões identificadas ao longo do estudo. / This thesis studies the mechanisms provided by Article 264 of the Brazilian Corporations Law for additional protection of the interests and rights of minority shareholders in the merger of a subsidiary corporation into its parent corporation. To this end, we discuss the legal provisions, the legal literature and the interpretations of administrative and judicial case law on the subject in Brazil. The first chapter of the study analyzes the concept and the legal nature of a merger, the substitution of shares and rights of the shareholders in the transaction, the merger procedure, and the control relationship that exists between the parent corporation and its subsidiary. The second chapter analyzes the historical development of the provisions of Article 264, from the bill from which it originated to the text of the provision currently in force. The third chapter analyzes the additional protection granted to minority shareholders by the chapeau of Article 264, regarding the share exchange ratio adopted in the transaction. The fourth chapter analyzes the additional protection afforded to minority shareholders by paragraph 3 of Article 264, relating to the right to withdraw from the transaction. Finally, the conclusion finalizes the main discussions identified throughout the study.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:34:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jaime Magalhes Machado Junior.pdf: 793543 bytes, checksum: 17e95c8543fb9dc7e32d912a5e52c7c6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-08-04 / This essay is in connection with mergers of shares (article 252 of Law nº 6,404/76), whereby a company (merged company) mergers its shares into another company (merging company) and becomes the wholly-owned subsidiary of the second, as far as the capital market is concerned. It discusses the origins and concept of mergers of shares in light of the U.S. paradigm (freezeout and squeezeout mergers) and the Brazilian laws and regulations. It addresses the existence of conflicts between minority and controlling shareholders in the Brazilian capital market. It looks into the characteristics of Brazilian public companies (companhias de capital aberto) by presenting data that indicate the existence in most of those transactions of one single controlling shareholder. It shows the increase of guarantees and rights made available to minority shareholders after amendments to related laws, particularly after 2001, and to rules issuing from the Brazilian Stock and Exchange Commission (CVM), as a way to broaden the alternatives to raise and use resources out of the national savings in the capital market. It suggests that mergers of shares can be viewed within the context of the capital market but at the same time from the legal prospective of protecting minority shareholders. It puts forward modalities or theories according to which mergers of shares can be fraudulent under the law, to the extent that the controlling shareholders can take abusive actions (articles 116 and 117 of Law nº 6,404/76) to the prejudice of minority shareholders. It suggests, further, the use of simulation models (article 167 of the Brazilian Civil Code), of the "indirect deal" theory and case study of economic grounds as means or tools available to determine the existence of illegalities in a merger of shares. It lists cases submitted to CVM and Legal System for consideration. Finally, it suggests ways that the Brazilian government can control and the consequences of administrative (by CVM) and court rulings in litigations between minority and controlling shareholders. / Este trabalho trata da operação de incorporação de ações (art. 252 da Lei nº 6.404/76), pela qual uma companhia (incorporadora) incorpora a totalidade das ações de outra (incorporada), que passa a ser sua subsidiária integral, no contexto do mercado de capitais. Apresenta as origens e o conceito da incorporação de ações, segundo o paradigma norte-americano (freezeout e squeezeout mergers) e a legislação brasileira. Discorre sobre a existência de conflitos entre os acionistas minoritários e os acionistas controladores no mercado de capitais brasileiro. Analisa as características das companhias de capital aberto brasileiras, apresentando dados que demonstram a existência, na maioria dessas, de um único controlador. Demonstra a ampliação das garantias e direitos dos acionistas minoritários nas reformas legislativas, especialmente após 2001, e na regulamentação pela Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM), como forma de ampliar a captação e o direcionamento de recursos da poupança popular para o mercado de capitais. Sugere que a incorporação de ações possa ser analisada no contexto do mercado de capitais e segundo as perspectivas legais de proteção do acionista minoritário. Apresenta modalidades ou hipóteses em que a incorporação de ações pode resultar em fraudes à lei, pela prática de atos abusivos pelos acionistas controladores (artigos 116 e 117 da Lei nº 6.404/76), em prejuízo dos acionistas minoritários. Sugere, ainda, a utilização da simulação (art. 167 do Código Civil brasileiro), da teoria do negócio indireto e da verificação casuística dos fundamentos econômicos, como meios ou instrumentos disponíveis para a constatação de ilegalidades na incorporação de ações. Colaciona casos práticos submetidos à análise da CVM e do Poder Judiciário. Por fim, apresenta as formas de controle do Estado brasileiro e as conseqüências das decisões administrativas (da CVM) e judiciais em litígios entre acionistas minoritários e controladores.

Corporate governance practice differs regionally and nationally, depending on how each legal environment protects minority investors, capital markets and company ownership structure. Governance can also change spectacularly in regions or countries with comparatively high levels of institutional investment. The notion of institutional investors' activism is increasingly important in developed markets as the ideal corporate governance mechanism to monitor corporate managers and overcome agency problems arising from dispersed corporate ownership in modern companies. These institutions can work together on an improved corporate governance framework more effectively than individual investors, monitoring corporate controllers of listed companies in emerging and developing markets, using their influence more vigorously and in ways more fitting to a concentrated ownership environment such as that in Saudi Arabia. Consequently, the role of institutional investors in emerging and developing markets will depend strongly on institutional investors' activism and the arrangements determined and undertaken by the corporate governance regulatory framework in these markets. In considering the influential role of institutional investors to improve corporate governance practice, a high level of minority shareholder protection thus remains an indicator of good corporate governance and regulatory pressure of rights and incentives, which are necessary to empower non-controlling shareholders in these concentrated ownership markets to exert a strong activist influence in monitoring corporate activities, thus improving the corporate governance practices of investee companies. In this context, this thesis contends that in Saudi Arabia in particular, shareholder involvement in corporate governance is inadequate, as a result of a variety of economic and regulatory obstacles. It goes on to identify what improvements are necessary and where, to ensure a sound framework for effective institutional investor activism and to improve the level of minority shareholder protection. It also cautions Saudi legislators against erecting hurdles to the future engagement of Saudi and foreign institutional investors in monitoring corporate activities which may affect the conditions for access, allocation and monitoring of equity, which is so important for value creation and sustainable economic growth. The main benefit to be derived from this research is that it facilitates a fuller understanding of the Saudi approach to corporate governance, the corporate ownership environment and trends in the capital market. The analysis also deepens knowledge of corporate governance regimes, including the role of institutional investors, and of their characteristics and investment behaviours. In short, it considers whether institutional investors are willing or have been encouraged to use their power to engage in the companies in which they invest and whether they are qualified to solve the agency problem.

Il est acquis qu’il n’existe pas une, mais plusieurs figures de l’actionnaire. Le fait est aujourd’hui largement acté en droit : on ne compte plus les règles, dans l’ensemble des disciplines du droit des affaires, qui ne s’appliquent qu’à certaines catégories d’actionnaires plutôt qu’à tout actionnaire. Une étude d’ensemble des catégories d’actionnaires permet dès lors de déterminer, pour chacune de ces règles, quelle est la catégorie d’actionnaires « pertinente ». Une telle démarche commande en premier lieu de s’interroger sur les critères des catégories d’actionnaires. Un premier critère, suggéré en doctrine et repris en droit positif, repose sur la psychologie de l’actionnaire. Il doit être rejeté, son admission n’apparaissant juridiquement ni possible ni utile. Un second critère, qui n’a jusqu’alors pas été envisagé en tant que tel, réside dans le pouvoir de l’actionnaire. Il mérite d’être consacré, étant vecteur d’une meilleure compréhension et d’une amélioration de notre droit.L’étude des catégories d’actionnaires conduit en second lieu à les aborder individuellement au sein d’une typologie des catégories d’actionnaires. Elle permet de dégager une vision d’ensemble des pouvoirs de l’actionnaire et d’en faire apparaître toute la richesse. En confrontant les pouvoirs de l’actionnaire les uns aux autres, elle facilite en outre la recherche de leur signification et de leur bonne utilisation en droit. / The categories of shareholders. It is commonly accepted that there is not a single, but several types of shareholders. This has become a fact of law given the increasing number of rules, in every area of business law, which only apply to certain categories of shareholders rather than to all shareholders. A global study of shareholders categories will thus permit to determine, for each of these rules, which category of shareholders is the “appropriate” one. Such an approach entails first of all to raise the question of the criteria of shareholders categories. One criterion, suggested by scholars and adopted in positive law, focuses on shareholder psychology. Such criterion must be rejected, its adoption being, from a legal standpoint, neither possible nor useful. Another criterion, which until now has never been considered in its own right, is shareholder power. Such criterion should be recognized, in so far as it could both improve the law and enhance our understanding of it. The study of shareholders categories leads us next to consider them individually within a typical shareholders classification. From there, an overall picture emerges of the wide ranging possibilities of shareholders powers. Indeed, if the different powers of shareholders are compared and contrasted, it becomes easier both to define them and use them correctly legally.

A presente dissertação é sobre a atuação do Estado na economia como acionista minoritário, focando, em especial, no caso do Brasil. Em um primeiro momento, tratamos das possibilidades do uso das participações minoritárias, apontando que, embora estejamos falando de propriedade pública sobre parcelas do capital social de empresas privadas, essas participações não configuram, somente, forma de exploração direta da atividade econômica, devendo ser compreendidas como uma técnica jurídica ou uma ferramenta da qual o Estado pode se valer para realizar as diferentes modalidades de atuação na economia. Nesse sentido, mostramos como as participações minoritárias possibilitam a atuação do Estado como empresário, regulador, fomentador e investidor. Em seguida, falamos dos mecanismos societários que a Administração Pública pode utilizar para que, mesmo como acionista minoritária, possa influenciar a direção das empresas público-privadas, tais como os acordos de acionistas e as golden-shares. Após cuidarmos da natureza jurídica e das vantagens comparativas da atuação estatal na economia por meio de participações minoritárias, passamos a analisar os limites dessa atuação. Desse modo, deve-se distinguir entre o uso das participações públicas como opção legítima de atuação na economia versus sua aplicação como burla ao regime jurídico aplicável às empresas estatais mediante o controle societário disfarçado e a simulação de contratações administrativas. Por fim, tratamos da questão da escolha de parceiros privados pela Administração Pública, bem como dos controles públicos que incidem sobre as empresas participadas. / This dissertation is about the state action in the economy as a minority shareholder especially focusing on the Brazilian case. At first, we discuss the possibilities of the use of minority equity stakes pointing out that, although we are talking about public ownership of shares of private companies, this equity participations do not constitute only a means of direct exploration of an economic activity, instead they should be considered as a legal technique or a tool which the state can rely on to accomplish the different modalities of economic action. This way, we show how the minority positions enable the state to act as an entrepreneur, a regulator, a promoter of private action and an investor. Then we talk about the corporate mechanisms that the Public Administration can use to, even as a minority shareholder, influence the direction of public-private companies, such as shareholders agreements and golden-shares. After dealing with the legal nature and the comparative advantages of the state economic action as a minority shareholder, we proceed to examine the limits of such action. Thus, we must distinguish between the use of minority equity as a legitimate option of state action in the economy versus its application as a way to elude the legal framework applicable to the state-owned enterprises by the disguised corporate control of private companies and the simulation of administrative procurement. At last, we deal with the issue of the choice of private partners by the Public Administration, as well as the public controls which apply to the invested companies.

A presente dissertação é sobre a atuação do Estado na economia como acionista minoritário, focando, em especial, no caso do Brasil. Em um primeiro momento, tratamos das possibilidades do uso das participações minoritárias, apontando que, embora estejamos falando de propriedade pública sobre parcelas do capital social de empresas privadas, essas participações não configuram, somente, forma de exploração direta da atividade econômica, devendo ser compreendidas como uma técnica jurídica ou uma ferramenta da qual o Estado pode se valer para realizar as diferentes modalidades de atuação na economia. Nesse sentido, mostramos como as participações minoritárias possibilitam a atuação do Estado como empresário, regulador, fomentador e investidor. Em seguida, falamos dos mecanismos societários que a Administração Pública pode utilizar para que, mesmo como acionista minoritária, possa influenciar a direção das empresas público-privadas, tais como os acordos de acionistas e as golden-shares. Após cuidarmos da natureza jurídica e das vantagens comparativas da atuação estatal na economia por meio de participações minoritárias, passamos a analisar os limites dessa atuação. Desse modo, deve-se distinguir entre o uso das participações públicas como opção legítima de atuação na economia versus sua aplicação como burla ao regime jurídico aplicável às empresas estatais mediante o controle societário disfarçado e a simulação de contratações administrativas. Por fim, tratamos da questão da escolha de parceiros privados pela Administração Pública, bem como dos controles públicos que incidem sobre as empresas participadas. / This dissertation is about the state action in the economy as a minority shareholder especially focusing on the Brazilian case. At first, we discuss the possibilities of the use of minority equity stakes pointing out that, although we are talking about public ownership of shares of private companies, this equity participations do not constitute only a means of direct exploration of an economic activity, instead they should be considered as a legal technique or a tool which the state can rely on to accomplish the different modalities of economic action. This way, we show how the minority positions enable the state to act as an entrepreneur, a regulator, a promoter of private action and an investor. Then we talk about the corporate mechanisms that the Public Administration can use to, even as a minority shareholder, influence the direction of public-private companies, such as shareholders agreements and golden-shares. After dealing with the legal nature and the comparative advantages of the state economic action as a minority shareholder, we proceed to examine the limits of such action. Thus, we must distinguish between the use of minority equity as a legitimate option of state action in the economy versus its application as a way to elude the legal framework applicable to the state-owned enterprises by the disguised corporate control of private companies and the simulation of administrative procurement. At last, we deal with the issue of the choice of private partners by the Public Administration, as well as the public controls which apply to the invested companies.

自我國企業併購法容許以現金作為併購對價後，現金逐出合併即成為我國法制上適法之併購類型。惟現金逐出合併通常為控制股東利用股權優勢，以現金對價剝奪少數股東留存於併購後公司之手段，故控制股東是否濫用資本多數決侵害少數股東權益以獨占併購利益乃成為現金逐出合併上不可忽視之討論重點。 本文以比較日本法之觀點，針對專屬於併購之保護機制及公司法上既有之救濟機制進行比較分析，以釐清及了解現行制度於實際操作上是否確實能夠在現金逐出合併之實行過程中發揮保護少數股東之功能。討論範圍上，前者，包含「資訊揭露制度」與「股份收買請求權」；後者，包含「股東制止請求權」與「爭執併購決議效力之訴訟」。比較內容圍繞在此四項制度於解釋適用上之學說與實務觀點。 除保護機制之討論外，本文另從二階段收購之角度探討少數股東之權益侵害。討論範圍上，主要以與股份收買請求權具有密切關係之控制權溢價分配及公開收購壓迫性兩者作為討論之對象，並從日本法之比較分析觀點，探討是否可透過股份收買請求權使少數股東分享控制權溢價，及解決二階段收購下可能引發之壓迫性問題。 最後，本文針對現行制度提出檢討與建議。在保護機制部分，資訊揭露制度應補強揭露內容與強化非公開發行公司之保護，股份收買請求權應調整目前實務採用之計算方式，股東制止請求權與爭執決議效力之訴訟應作一體性之調整。至於二階段收購部分，則應容許少數股東可分享控制權溢價，並暫以股份收買請求權解決公開收購之壓迫性問題。

La présente étude a pour objet de montrer que les moyens de la protection des actionnaires minoritaires en droit chinois et en droit français ne sont pas soumis à des critères fondamentalement différents. Dans les sociétés anonymes, les règles juridiques visent à trouver un équilibre des rapports entre les actionnaires majoritaires et minoritaires, ainsi qu’entre les actionnaires et la société ou le groupe de sociétés.C’est l’intérêt social et le principe d’égalité qui guident le législateur et le juge de proposer des solutions convenables.Il importe de noter qu’en droit français, les dispositions sur les responsabilités et les moyens de recours pour les minoritaires sont d’applications faciles qu’en droit chinois. D’ailleurs, la recherche de l’acquisition des sociétés cotées chinoises sous l’angle de la protection des minoritaires, tout à fait différent à l’offre publique en droit français, présente les particularités du marché réglementé chinois et mérite que les investisseurs étrangers découvrent davantage. / The dissertation aimed to point out that the methods of the protection of minority shareholders in Chinese law and in French law are not subject to the different criteria. In company limited by shares, the legal provisions intend to find a balance of relation between majority shareholders and minority shareholders, and between the shareholders and the company or group of company. It is corporate profits and the principal of equality that direct legislators and judges to suggest applicable solutions.It is important to notify that in French law, legal provisions about the responsibility of majority shareholders or company leaders and the ways of resort of minority shareholders provide reference for improvement of Chinese law. Besides, the study of acquisition of chinese listed companies, looked from the angle of the protection of minority shareholders, very different from tender offer in French law, demonstrate the characteristics of Chinese stock market and deserve foreign investors’ enough attention.