论文部分内容阅读
优先股股东与普通股股东的利益追求不尽相同,两类股东的利益冲突在所难免。美国特拉华州法院在处理普通股和优先股的利益冲突时,经历了从最初认定优先股股东仅享有合同权利,董事对其不负信义义务的立场,到赋予优先股股东信义义务和合同权利的双重保护,最后演变为强调对优先股股东应以合同保护为主,只有在极少情形下才能给予信义义务的保护。美国法院的立场变化,主要是由于目前在美国,优先股大部分是由风险投资企业所使用,法院认为风险投资企业有能力通过合同形式保护自己的利益,无需信义义务的保护。美国的法院判例对完善我国的优先股制度不无启示。
The pursuit of interests of the preference shareholders and the common shareholders is not the same, and the conflicts of interest of the two types of shareholders are inevitable. When dealing with the conflict of interests of common stock and preferred stock, the Delaware state court of U.S. experienced from the position that the preferred stock shareholder initially only enjoyed the contractual right and the directors did not have the obligation of faithfulness to it, The dual protection of rights finally evolved to emphasize that priority shareholders should be based on contract protection, and only in rare circumstances can the obligation of faith be given protection. The changes in the position of U.S. courts are mainly due to the fact that the majority of preference shares are used by venture capital firms in the United States at present. The court finds that venture capital firms have the ability to protect their own interests through contracts without the need for the protection of fiduciary duties. The case of the United States courts is not without enlightenment to perfect our country’s preference stock system.