论股东代表诉讼前置程序的豁免——以“履行无意义”豁免为中心
作者:
作者单位:

武汉大学法学院

作者简介:

陈芝铭,女,主要研究方向为民商法。

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

D922.291.91

基金项目:


The Exemption of Pre-suit Demand in Derivative Suit——Centering on the“Request for Futility”
Author:
Affiliation:

School of Law, Wuhan University

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    公司利益受损时,原则上应当由公司直接提起诉讼。公司拒绝起诉、公司怠于起诉、 公司不能起诉、公司起诉将耽误时机,是将案件引流至股东代表诉讼的特别理由。司法实践中存 在滥用“履行无意义”豁免的现象,不利于维护公司的独立人格。“履行无意义”豁免并非不可或缺, 为了降低该制度的运行成本,需要严格限制其适用,明确其适用规则。前置程序的履行是否无意 义,应根据有利害关系或缺位的董事、监事在公司管理机构中的占比进行判断。原告股东兼任监 事的,不应豁免前置程序。

    Abstract:

    When the interest of a company is damaged, the plaintiff shall be the company in principle. However, in many cases, the company refuses to bring suit or is slack in bringing suit; moreover, some companies are un? able to bring suit and some lawsuits will delay the opportunity of winning. These are the reasons for the applica? tion of shareholder representative suit. Misuse of“request for futility”exists in judicial practice. The indepen? dent personality of the company is not respected.“Request for futility”is not indispensable. In order to reduce the operating cost of the system, it is necessary to strictly limit its application and clarify its applicable rules. Whether the pre-suit demand is futile shall be judged according to the proportion of directors and supervisors who have interests or are absent in the corporate management. If the shareholder also serves as a supervisor, it shall not be exempted from the pre-suit demand.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-03-23
  • 出版日期: