專題二：揭開法人面紗

專題二：揭開法人面紗2011年9月19日Review1公司與合伙企業(yè)的區(qū)別合伙，是指二人以上按照合伙協(xié)議，共同出資、共同經(jīng)營(yíng)、共享利益和共擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的盈利性組織。合伙既可以是一種契約，也可以是一種企業(yè)，區(qū)分為民事合伙與商事合伙。合伙企業(yè)與公司的區(qū)別主要體現(xiàn)在：（1）成立的基礎(chǔ)不同（2）法律地位不同（3）財(cái)產(chǎn)關(guān)系不同（4）人身關(guān)系不同（合伙企業(yè)是典型的人合企業(yè)，合伙人之間存在密切的人身依賴關(guān)系，合伙人的入伙、退伙須經(jīng)全體合伙人一致同意。公司主要體現(xiàn)的是資合性的特征，公司的存續(xù)不受個(gè)別股東變動(dòng)的影響。）（5）管理權(quán)利的行使不同（6）盈虧分配的法律規(guī)制不同（7）責(zé)任承擔(dān)不同（8）融資的途徑不同2下列關(guān)于公司分類的哪一表述是錯(cuò)誤的？

A．一人公司是典型的人合公司

B．上市公司是典型的資合公司

C．非上市股份公司是資合為主兼具人合性質(zhì)的公司

D．有限責(zé)任公司是以人合為主兼具資合性質(zhì)的公司3下列所作的各種關(guān)于公司的分類，哪一種是以公司的信用基礎(chǔ)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的分類？

A.總公司與分公司

B.母公司與子公司

C.人合公司與資合公司

D.封閉式公司與開放式公司公司法的學(xué)習(xí)框架總論部分特別是有限責(zé)任和獨(dú)立法人人格揭開法人面紗公司的設(shè)立公司章程公司的權(quán)利能力公司的資本制度股東和股權(quán)公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)董事、監(jiān)事和高管人員的任職資格和義務(wù)公司融資：股票和債券公司財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)公司的合并、分立、解散和清算一揭開法人面紗制度設(shè)立的初衷什么是揭開法人面紗？Liftingthecorporateveil揭開法人面紗制度的淵源Salomoncase為什么要揭開法人面紗？揭開法人面紗與股東有限責(zé)任和獨(dú)立法人人格制度的碰撞我國(guó)2005年新公司法引入了揭開法人面紗制度第20條第3款：公司股東濫用公司法人獨(dú)立地位和股東有限責(zé)任，逃避債務(wù)，嚴(yán)重?fù)p害公司債權(quán)人利益的，應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)公司債務(wù)承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

二揭開法人面紗的特征只對(duì)特定案件中公司的獨(dú)立人格予以否認(rèn)，而不是對(duì)該公司法人人格予以全面、徹底、永久的否認(rèn)。該制度主要是為了保護(hù)公司債權(quán)人的利益，它在性質(zhì)上屬于民事責(zé)任，是私法上的責(zé)任。公司法人人格否認(rèn)不是對(duì)公司法人人格獨(dú)立制度的否認(rèn)，而是對(duì)公司法人人格獨(dú)立制度的維護(hù)和完善，是對(duì)公司與債權(quán)人之間利益失衡的一種事后救濟(jì)。公司法人人格否認(rèn)的適用條件主體要件該制度適用的對(duì)象必須是具體的雙方當(dāng)事人，一是濫用公司人格的股東，二是因公司法人人格濫用而受到損害，并有權(quán)提起訴訟的債權(quán)人。行為要件適用的基本條件是存在股東濫用公司人格的事實(shí)和行為，如濫用公司人格回避合同義務(wù)、濫用公司人格造成公司形骸化等。結(jié)果要件該制度適用的一個(gè)重要條件是必須有損害的事實(shí)存在，即濫用行為造成了逃避債務(wù)、嚴(yán)重?fù)p害公司債權(quán)人利益的結(jié)果。CasesregardingliftingthecorporateveilunderEnglishcommonlawJonesvLipman[1962]1WLR832LittlewoodsMailOrderStoresLtdvInlandRevenueCommissioners[1969]1WLR1241CALittlewoodsMailOrderStoresLtdvInlandRevenueCommissioners[1969]1WLR1241CAFact:LittlewoodsMailOrderStoresLtd.carryonabigbusinessatJubileeHouseinOxfordStreet.In1947thebuildingwasboughtbyOddfellowsFriendlySocietyfor￡605,000.TheOddfellowsletittoLittlewoodsona99-yearleaseatarentof￡23,444ayear.ThatrentgavetheOddfellowsareturnofonly37/8thspercent.ontheiroutlay.Duringthenext11yearsthevalueofmoneygotmuchless.In1958thebuildingwasworthabout￡2,000,000ifsoldwithvacantpossession.Andtherentobtainableonatenancyfromyeartoyeargrantedin1958wouldbe￡60,000ayear.YetLittlewoodshadaleasewithanother88yearstogoatarentof￡23,444.

Suchbeingtheposition,in1958theadvisersofOddfellowsandLittlewoodscarriedthroughadealwhichwasdesignedtoconferaconsiderableadvantageonbothofthem.Itcametothis:theOddfellowstransferredthefreeholdinJubileeHousetotheForkManufacturingCo.Ltd.,whichwasawholly-ownedsubsidiaryofLittlewoods.TheForkCompanyletJubileeHousetotheOddfellowsfor22yearsand10daysatarentof￡6ayear.TheOddfellowsgrantedanunderleasetoLittlewoodsfor22yearsatarentof￡42,450ayear.TheresultwasthatLittlewoodsgaveuptheirleasefor88yearsatarentof￡23,444andtookinsteadaleasefromtheOddfellowsfor22yearsat￡42,450:and,inaddition,Littlewoods,throughtheirwholly-ownedsubsidiary,theForkManufacturingCo.Ltd.,attheendofthe22years,wouldhavetheentirefreeholdinhandinpossession.InreturntheOddfellowsreceivedarentof￡42,450for22yearsandthenlostallinterestinthepremises.ThesignificanceofthiscaseKeyissues:Thedealwasdesignedtoadvantagebothinthisway:ontheonehandOddfellowswouldreceivearentof￡42,450ayearfor22years,whichwouldbeclearoftaxastheywereacharity.Ontheotherhand,Littlewoodswouldclaimtodeductthefullrentof￡42,450fromtheirprofitsinsteadofthesmallersumof￡23,444.Sotheywouldescapealotoftax.Thedealwouldbetotheadvantageofbothsides,attheexpenseoftherevenue.Thepaymentforfixedassetscouldnotbedeductedfromincome.Rentalcostsweredeductiblefromincome.Transactions:Leaseback￡6Fork(whollyownedsubsidiary)OddfellowsTransferoffreehold

Underlease￡42,450LittlewoodsThejudgedeclinedtotreatthesubsidiaryForkasaseparatelegalentityanditwasnotentitledtodeducttheextra￡19,006incomputingtheirprofits.FraudulenttradingInsolvencyAct213:Fraudulenttrading(civilliability)(1)Ifinthecourseofthewindingupofacompanyitappearsthatanybusinessofthecompanyhasbeencarriedonwithintenttodefraudcreditorsofthecompanyorcreditorsofanyotherperson,orforanyfraudulentpurpose,thefollowinghaseffect.(2)Thecourt,ontheapplicationoftheliquidatormaydeclarethatanypersonswhowereknowinglypartiestothecarryingonofthebusinessinthemannerabove-mentionedaretobeliabletomakesuchcontributions(ifany)tothecompany'sassetsasthecourtthinksproper.CompaniesAct2006993:Offenceoffraudulenttrading

(criminaloffence)(1)Ifanybusinessofacompanyiscarriedonwithintenttodefraudcreditorsofthecompanyorcreditorsofanyotherperson,orforanyfraudulentpurpose,everypersonwhoisknowinglyapartytothecarryingonofthebusinessinthatmannercommitsanoffence.(2)Thisapplieswhetherornotthecompanyhasbeen,orisinthecourseofbeing,woundup.(3)Apersonguiltyofanoffenceunderthissectionisliable–(a)onconvictiononindictment,toimprisonmentforatermnotexceedingtenyearsorafine(orboth);(b)onsummaryconviction–(i)inEnglandandWales,toimprisonmentforatermnotexceedingtwelvemonthsorafinenotexceedingthestatutorymaximum(orboth);(ii)inScotlandorNorthernIreland,toimprisonmentforatermnotexceedingsixmonthsorafinenotexceedingthestatutorymaximum(orboth).RvGrantham[1984]QB675

Whatiswrongfultradinganditskeypoints?Ifdirectorskneworoughttohaveconcludedthattherewasnoreasonableprospectofcompanyavoidinggoingintoinsolventliquidation,thedirectorsshalltakeeverymeasuretomitigatethepotentiallosstothecompany’screditors.Scopeofapplication:dejure/defacto