earticle

영어

Nominee shareholding agreements are complex due to the number of legal norms involved, especially the nominee holding agreements for listed companies face more restrictions. In determining the validity of the equity nominee holding agreement, the provisions on the validity of the contract in the Civil Code should be accurately applied, and Article 153 of the Civil Code should not be applied in a general and vague manner to determine the invalidity of the nominee agreement, and the reasons for financial security and market order maintenance should be fully explained. On the issue of the attribution of interests after the nominee shareholding agreement is found to be invalid, it is necessary to treat the illegal circumvention equity nominee holding agreement and the ordinary non-circumvention equity nominee holding agreement separately. For the benefits obtained based on the invalid circumvention nominee shareholding agreement, giving the company the right to accrue can better achieve a win-win situation of legal and social effects, and also enable the company to actively discover and deal with the internal driving force of the illegal circumvention nominee agreement. For non-circumvention equity holding agreements, they can be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Minutes of the Ninth National Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference. Therefore, the judgment idea of taking the reason of nominee holding as the core of the dispute resolution of nominee holding is formed.

중국어

股权代持协议由于其所涉法律规范之多而具有复杂性，尤以上市公司为代持对象的 代持协议面临更多限制。在股权代持协议效力的认定上，要准确适用《民法典》中关于 合同效力的规定，不能笼统含糊地适用《民法典》第一百五十三条认定代持协议无效， 对金融安全和市场秩序维护的理由要进行充分说理论证。在股权代持协议认定无效后 的利益归属问题上，要将具有违法性的规避型股权代持协议和普通的非规避型股权代 持协议区分处理。对于基于无效规避型股权代持协议所获利益的，赋予公司归入权更 能实现法律效果和社会效果的双赢局面，还能使公司产生积极发现和处理违法规避型 代持协议的内驱动力。对于非规避型股权代持协议，依据《民法典》和《九民纪要》的相 关规定进行处理即可。由此形成以代持原因为股权代持争议解决核心的判断思路。