本文主要探討公司治理體系下控制權市場所發揮之功能，內容大致上分為四個部分。第一部分先就公司治理理論以及不同體系加以介紹，從Ronald H. Coase交易成本理論、Berle & Means五種公司類型，以及代理理論說明公司治理的理論基礎，再分別介紹OECD以及World Bank的公司治理架構，而控制權市場則是公司治理體系下，外部治理機制的一項重要工具，最後就美國、日本與我國的公司治理體系加以介紹。 第二部分則是說明企業併購促使控制權市場發揮治理成效之主要活動，因此，分別就美國、日本與我國企業併購之概況加以闡述。美國歷經了五次併購風潮，有其經濟、文化等結構性因素，而日本與我國過去並未發生併購風潮，然而隨著結構性因素的改變，再加上全球化的浪潮，日本與我國併購活動有逐漸加溫之趨勢。 視敵意併購為控制權市場之主要利器，這是因為企業雖然有可能因為善意併購後，改善效率進而增加股東權益，有助於公司治理，但敵意併購活動更兼具威嚇現任經營者之效果，因此，敵意併購活動於公司治理體系上，一方面可汰換不適任經營者，另一方面亦可對現任經營者造成威嚇使其不敢進行有礙於股東權益之情事。而主併者進行敵意併購，主要可行的途徑有二：一為收購股權，另一為委託書徵求。就法制面而言，則見諸公開收購以及委託書管理相關規定。 第三部分開始探討敵意併購法制，本文分別介紹了美國、日本以及我國公開收購制度，目前我國已從事先核准制修正為事先申報制，與美國、日本之申報制相近。但對於公開收購定義則大相逕庭，美國採八項要素判斷，日本與我國則加以明確定義。另外股東平等原則部份，美國、日本與我國同採「比例分配制」，關於禁止變更收購條件的範圍，則是美國最寬鬆因此有利於主併者，而日本最嚴格。至於美國州法下的反併購條款在我國與日本並未出現。而關於我國引進強制公開收購制度，本文分別引述支持與反對者之意見，並基於促進併購活動發生有利於公司治理此一面向，說明強制公開收購制度可能之影響。 第四部份探討美國、日本與我國關於委託書徵求相關制度，就資訊公開的內容而言，美國、日本與我國相關規定大同小異，但徵求人資格限制以及徵求股份總數限制為我國獨有，況且因公司派掌握紀念品的製作權以及發放權，加上相關規定使投信事業必須支持符合持股成數之之公司董事會提出之議案或董事、監察人候選人，且又就使用股東名冊的難易程度而言，我國委託書徵求相關規定實對現任經營者較有利。 而關於委託書價購與否之爭論，本文分別就正反兩方之理由加以介紹，後從公司治理之角度出發，認為收購委託書可能使管理者有更多經濟上誘因進行舞弊，有礙於公司治理，故應禁止之。 最後比較公開收購制度與委託書徵求制度二者，分別從所需資金、成本風險控制、實施之便宜性以及公司治理角度，希冀我國未來公開收購制度能善加運用，發揮公司治理之功效。文末並提出相關建議，以供將來之研究或主管機關作為參考。 / This dissertation mainly discusses the role of control market in the framework of corporate governance. It is composed of four parts. The first part introduces relevant theories of corporate governance, including Ronald H. Coase’s “transaction cost theory”, Berle & Means’ “five types of corporation”, and agency theory. Then the diverse frameworks of corporate governance including OECD, World Bank, in which control market is indicated as a significant external mechanism, are illustrated. At last, the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan's frameworks of corporate governance are introduced respectively. The second part explains that the merges & acquisitions (M&A) is one of the major activities that make control market operate effectively. Then the general situations of the M&A in the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan are introduced. Taken as a main mechanism of control market, hostile takeover not only strikes inefficient managers but menaces the incumbent from fraud. Two major feasible approaches of hostile takeover are purchasing stocks and soliciting proxies. The rules of tender offer and proxy contest are relevant. The third part discusses the legal institution of hostile takeover. The rules of tender offer of U.S., Japan, and Taiwan are introduced. Then the similarities and dissimilarities between the rules from the definitions of tender offer, equal treatment to shareholders, and anti-takeover strategies are detailed. At the end of this part, different points of view about mandatory tender offer and its relation with corporate governance are discussed. The fourth part explores (investigates) the rules of proxy contest of the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan. They are similar in the disclosure principle, but only Taiwan set limitations on the qualification of solicitors and the amount of proxies. In addition, the incumbent in Taiwan have the control over the manufacturing and delivery of the tokens for shareholders in annual meetings. What’s more, regulations force the institute-investors to support the incumbent. In conclusion, the proxy rules in Taiwan favor the incumbent. Also, the arguments over proxy purchase and its relation with corporate governance is mentioned. At last, this paper compares tender offer with proxy soliciting in several aspects: the fund needed, risk control, convenience, and corporate governance. In the end, the conclusion provides some suggestions for legislators and future studies.

No description available.

As medidas defensivas contra tomadas de controle constituem o núcleo de estudo desta dissertação. São instrumentos jurídicos adotados principalmente por companhias abertas com dispersão acionária, visando à proteção contra uma eventual tentativa de tomada de controle. O assunto é de especial interesse no atual momento do mercado de capitais brasileiro, que vem apresentando significativo desenvolvimento nos últimos anos e propiciando meios para a proliferação no Brasil de companhias abertas com dispersão acionária. O estudo do tema é feito concomitantemente à crescente utilização no Brasil de proteções contra tomadas de controle, inclusive por companhias não dotadas de dispersão acionária. Algumas medidas defensivas são inspiradas na experiência prática de outros países e vêm sendo transplantadas para o Brasil sem a adequada harmonização às características do nosso regime jurídico. Este trabalho analisa os efeitos da utilização de medidas defensivas e, na medida do possível, a admissibilidade da adoção de determinadas defesas no Brasil. São também abordados os balizamentos para a postura da administração de companhias diante de tentativas de tomada de controle. São estudados os padrões de tratamento do tema nos principais modelos existentes na experiência internacional, a fim de fornecer subsídios para a criação de uma identidade brasileira no tratamento das defesas contra tentativas de tomada de controle. / The defensive anti-takeover measures constitute the core area of study in this dissertation. These are legal devices adopted mainly by publicly-held companies with widespread ownership dispersion, aiming at protection against an eventual takeover attempt. The subject is of special interest at the current moment of the Brazilian capital markets, which have shown significant development in the recent years, providing means for the proliferation in Brazil of publicly-held companies with widespread ownership dispersion. The study of the issue is done concomitantly with the increase of utilization in Brazil of anti-takeover protections, including by companies without widespread ownership dispersion. Some defensive measures are inspired by the practical experience of other countries, being transplanted to Brazil without the proper harmonization with the characteristics of our own legal system. This work analyzes the effects of the utilization of defensive measures and, to the extent possible, the admissibility of adoption of certain defenses in Brazil. The boundaries for the behavior of the management of companies under takeover attempts are also approached. The patterns for the treatment of this issue in the main existing models in foreign experience are studied, so as to provide subsidies to the creation of a Brazilian identity in the treatment of the defenses against takeover attempts.

我國公開收購之審議委員會制度，已實施約5年，規定審議委員會應審議收購案，並建議股東是否應賣。迄今（民國106年6月5日）應設置審議委員會之案件共計55起，其中有36起揭露股份轉讓合約，合約記載與該次收購相關之合約條款，為審議委員會於審議過程可得之資訊。合約約定之內容，將影響簽約雙方承擔之風險，過去亦有案例，顯示合約內容之重要性。透過分析36份股份轉讓合約及5起發生於國內之個案，本研究試圖瞭解合約之違約賠償條款如何影響審議委員會做成建議，以及標的公司之審議委員會及股東於收購案應注意之風險。本研究之結論有二：第一，當股份轉讓合約之違約賠償條款，能夠對風險做出因應時，審議委員會應表示正面意見。第二，標的公司之審議委員會及股東應注意之風險事項，計10項： 1. 公開收購說明書是否有揭露股份轉讓合約。 2. 股份轉讓合約是否有約定違約賠償條款。 3. 違約賠償條款之約定，是否能因應風險。 4. 標的公司之股權結構，是否過於分散或集中。 5. 公開收購人之真實身分，以及其是否與具爭議性人物有關係。 6. 公開收購人與標的公司經營理念之差異。 7. 若收購案牽涉其他主管機關核准，應考量主管機關核准時程。 8. 外界對於收購案之傳聞。 9. 公開收購案之性質，係水平、垂直或多角化經營；是否為跨國案件。 10. 公司過去營運事項及管理階層所作決策或提案，是否有不合理情事。 / The new system of review committee of every public company shall under takes the responsibility to recommend to shareholders about whether to sell their shares in a tender offer has been implemented in Taiwan for five years. The review committee is comprise of all independent directors, they should investigate and review the tender offer before they make their suggestions: positive, negative, or netural. Up to now (June 5, 2017), 55 tender offer cases involve the suggestion from review committee. Among these 55 cases, 36 cases have disclosured share transfer contracts, the terms of the contract were available for the review committee and this research. The terms of the contract affect heavily the risks taken and return awarded by both parties, merit a thorough research but seldom done by previous research.The purpose of this thesis is to find out how the terms of contract affect the review committee’s recommendations. The term studied is damage for breach, this term is selected because its importance, it impact seriously the risks of the acquired company and its shareholders’ wealth.This study starts from analyzing 36 share transfer contracts and 5 tender offer cases in Taiwan, two observations obtain. First, the review committee should express positive recommedation when the terms of damage for breach of contract could response the risk. Second, the 10 risks the acquired company’s review committee and shareholders should pay attention are: 1. Whether the tender offer prospectus disclose the share transfer contract. 2. Whether the share transfer contracts have the terms of damage for breach of contract. 3. Whether the terms of damage for breach of contract could response the risks. 4. Whether the acquired company’s ownership structure is too fragmented or concentrated. 5. Whether the tender offeror is related to a controversial person and its real identity. 6. The different business philosophy between the tender offeror and the acquired company. 7. If the tender offer involves the approval of relevant competent authorities, the processing time of the approval should be concerned. 8. The rumors of the tender offer. 9. The nature of the tender offer is horizontal, vertical or diversified; whether it is a transnational case. 10. Whether both company's past operations and management decisions are unreasonable.

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。

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o estudo do instituto da incorporação de ações. Para tanto, será analisado, (i) no primeiro capítulo, o regime legal vigente e sua natureza jurídica, apresentando-se as diferenças em relação à operação de incorporação de sociedade, fazendo inclusive um contraste com o direito norte-americano; (ii) no segundo capítulo, a proteção dos acionistas minoritários em operações de incorporação de controlada e eventual impedimento de voto do acionista controlador, analisando-se os recentes pareceres de orientação emitidos pela CVM; (iii) no terceiro capítulo, o estudo do instituto do tag along e do fechamento de capital e necessidade de realização de oferta pública em operações de incorporação de ações que impliquem transferência de controle ou cancelamento de registro de companhia aberta, à luz das últimas operações realizadas no mercado; (iv) no quarto capítulo, a discussão dos principais precedentes nos quais a CVM decidiu impor restrições ou impedir a realização de operações de incorporação de ações por entender ter havido um tratamento não equitativo entre os acionistas minoritários e controladores, com o objetivo de demonstrar a alteração do comportamento do órgão regulador no decorrer dos anos / The present work aims the study of the stock-for-stock exchange transactions (incorporação de ações). For this purpose, it will be examined (i) in the first part, the current legal regime and legal nature, contemplating differences with the statutory merger (incorporação de sociedade), including a comparison with the US law, (ii) in the second part, the protection of minority shareholders in the context of parent-subsidiary mergers and possible exclusion from voting of the controlling shareholder, taking into account the recent opinions issued by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), (iii) in the third part, the study of the tag along rights and the regulation for delisting companies and the need to conduct a tender offer in stock-for-stock exchange transactions involving transfer of control or delisting of a publicly-held company in light of recent transactions, and (iv) in the fourth part, the discussion of the key precedents on which CVM has decided to impose restrictions or prevent the conduct of stock-for-stock transaction under the understanding that there was inequitable treatment of minority shareholders and controlling shareholders, in order to demonstrate the change of the CVMs understanding over the years.

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o estudo do instituto da incorporação de ações. Para tanto, será analisado, (i) no primeiro capítulo, o regime legal vigente e sua natureza jurídica, apresentando-se as diferenças em relação à operação de incorporação de sociedade, fazendo inclusive um contraste com o direito norte-americano; (ii) no segundo capítulo, a proteção dos acionistas minoritários em operações de incorporação de controlada e eventual impedimento de voto do acionista controlador, analisando-se os recentes pareceres de orientação emitidos pela CVM; (iii) no terceiro capítulo, o estudo do instituto do tag along e do fechamento de capital e necessidade de realização de oferta pública em operações de incorporação de ações que impliquem transferência de controle ou cancelamento de registro de companhia aberta, à luz das últimas operações realizadas no mercado; (iv) no quarto capítulo, a discussão dos principais precedentes nos quais a CVM decidiu impor restrições ou impedir a realização de operações de incorporação de ações por entender ter havido um tratamento não equitativo entre os acionistas minoritários e controladores, com o objetivo de demonstrar a alteração do comportamento do órgão regulador no decorrer dos anos / The present work aims the study of the stock-for-stock exchange transactions (incorporação de ações). For this purpose, it will be examined (i) in the first part, the current legal regime and legal nature, contemplating differences with the statutory merger (incorporação de sociedade), including a comparison with the US law, (ii) in the second part, the protection of minority shareholders in the context of parent-subsidiary mergers and possible exclusion from voting of the controlling shareholder, taking into account the recent opinions issued by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), (iii) in the third part, the study of the tag along rights and the regulation for delisting companies and the need to conduct a tender offer in stock-for-stock exchange transactions involving transfer of control or delisting of a publicly-held company in light of recent transactions, and (iv) in the fourth part, the discussion of the key precedents on which CVM has decided to impose restrictions or prevent the conduct of stock-for-stock transaction under the understanding that there was inequitable treatment of minority shareholders and controlling shareholders, in order to demonstrate the change of the CVMs understanding over the years.

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.