美国公司法中英文教程Chapter 2

*-+Chapter 2

THE CORPORATE FORM公司设立

I. WHERE AND HOW TO INCORPORATE设立地点、方法

A. Delaware vs. headquarter state: The incorporators must

choose between incorporating in their headquarter state, or incorporating somewhere else (probably Delaware). [13]

1. Closely held（非上市公司？这两个术语我也不是很确

定，差不多是这意思吧）: For a closely held corporation,

incorporation should usually take place in the state

where the corporation’s principal place of business

主营业地is located. [14]

2. Publicly held（上市公司？）: But for a publicly held

corporation, incorporation in Delaware is usually very

attractive (because of Delaware’s well-defined,

predictable, body of law, and its slight

pro-management bias.) [14]

I.公司设立

A．在公司总部所在地设立或其他地方

1、非上市公司的设立一般都在公司主营业所在地

2、上市公司在特拉华州设立具有很大优势。

B．公司设立机制

1、公司章程，成立一个公司创立人需要起草公司章程

a.修订，章程可以随时被修订，需经因修订权利受损股东的

多数票通过。

1、发起人在明知公司为成立，而以公司名义与他人订立合

同的，需要对所订立的合同承担责任。

a.公司没能成立或随后即解散，发起人要承担合同责任

b．公司成立后，表示接受发起人订立的合同的，则合同

责任转移到公司

B. Mechanics of incorporating公司设立机制:

1. Articles of incorporation公司章程: To form a corporation, the incorporators file a document with the Secretary of State. This document is usually called the "articles of incorporation"or the "charter." [15]

a. Amending修订: The articles can be amended at

any time after filing. However, any class of

stockholders who would be adversely affected by

the amendment must approve the amendment by

majority vote. See, e.g., RMBCA ?have generally

eliminated the ultra vires doctrine. See, e.g.,

RMBCA > is one who takes initiative in

founding and organizing a corporation. A

promoter发起人、创办人may occasionally be

liable for debts he contracts on behalf of the

to-be formed corporation. [22]

1. Promoter aware, other party not: If the

promoter enters into a contract in the

corporation’s name, and the promoter

knows that the corporation has not yet

been formed (but the other party does not

know this), the promoter will be liable

under the contract. See RMBCA示范商业公

司法修订案t finds to be the parties’

intent. [25]

a. Never formed, or immediately

defaults公司没能成立或随后即解散:

If the corporation is never formed,

or is formed but then immediately

defaults, the promoter will

probably be liable.

b. Formed and then adopts: But if

the corporation is formed, and then

shows its intent to take over the

contract (i.e., "adopts" the

contract), then the court may find

that both parties intended that the

promoter be released from liability

(a "novation").

B. Liability of corporation公司责任: If the

corporation did not exist at the time the

promoter signed a contract on its behalf, the

corporation will not become liable unless it

"adopts"the contract. Adoption may be implied.

(Example: The corporation receives benefits

under the contract, without objecting to them.

The corporation will be deemed to have

implicitly adopted the contract, making it

liable and perhaps making the promoter no longer

liable.) [26]

C. Promoter’s fiduciary obligation发起人的信

托责任: During the pre-incorporation period,

the promoter has a fiduciary obligation to the

to-be-formed corporation. He therefore may not

pursue his own profit at the corporation’s

ultimate expense. (Example: The promoter may not

sell the corporation property at a grossly

inflated price.) [27]

B．公司责任，在公司尚未成立时，发起人以公司名

义订立的合同，除非公司后来接受了合同，否则公司

不承担责任

C.发起人的信托责任，在公司的设立阶段，发起人对

公司承担负有信托义务。

IV. DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION 设立有瑕疵

A. Common law "de facto事实上、实际上" doctrine:

At common law, if a person made a "colorable"

attempt to incorporate (e.g., he submitted

articles to the Secretary of State, which were

rejected), a "de facto" corporation would be

found to have been formed. This would be enough

to shelter the would-be incorporator from the

personal liability that would otherwise result.

This is the "de facto corporation" doctrine.

[29]

1. Modern view现代观点: But today, most

states have abolished the de facto

doctrine, and expressly impose personal

liability on anyone who purports to do

business as a corporation while knowing

that incorporation has not occurred. See

RMBCA s a judge-made doctrine.

IV.设立有瑕疵

A．习惯法上的事实原则，虽然公司的设立存

在瑕疵，未获批准，但根据事实原则，可以认

定已存在事实公司，而不是发起人不再需要对

外承担责任。

1、现代观点，如今大多数的州已经废除了事

实原则，也就是由个人来承担责任。

V. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL 揭开法人面纱

A. Generally概述: In a few very extreme cases,

courts may "pierce the corporate veil,"and hold

some or all of the shareholders personally

liable for the corporation’s debts. [33]

B. Individual shareholders个人股东: If the

corporation’s shares are held by individuals,

here are some factors that courts look to in

deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil:

[33]

1. Tort民事侵权行为 vs. contract

("voluntary creditor"): Courts are more

likely to pierce the veil in a tort case

(where the creditor is "involuntary")

than in a contract case (where the

creditor is "voluntary"). [34]

2. Fraud欺诈: Veil piercing is more

likely where there has been a grievous

fraud or wrongdoing by the shareholders

(e.g., the sole shareholder siphons out

all profits, leaving the corporation

without enough money to pay its claims).

[35]

3. Inadequate capitalization资本投入不足: Most important, veil piercing is most likely if the corporation has been inadequately capitalized. But most courts do not make inadequate capitalization alone enough for veil piercing. [35]

a. Zero capital零投资: When the

shareholder invests no money

whatsoever in the corporation,

courts are especially likely to

pierce the veil, and may require

less of a showing on the other

factors than if the capitalization

was inadequate but non-zero.

b. Siphoning利润转移:

Capitalization may be inadequate

either because there is not enough

initial capital创办资本, or

because the corporation’s profits

are systematically siphoned out as

earned. But if capitalization is

adequate, and the corporation then

has unexpected liabilities, the

shareholders’ failure to put in

additional capital will generally

not be inadequate capitalization.

4. Failure of formalities没有遵循法人经营程序: Lastly, the court is more likely to pierce the veil if the shareholders have failed to follow corporate formalities in running the business. (Example: Shares are never formally issued, directors’ mee tings are not held, shareholders co-mingle personal and company funds.)[39]

5. Summary总结: In nearly all cases at least two of the above four factors must be present for the court to pierce the veil; the most common combination is probably inadequate capitalization plus failure to follow corporate formalities.

V.揭开法人面纱

A．概述，在少数情况下，法院会认定由股东

个人而非公司承担民事责任，即所谓的“揭开

法人面纱”

B．股东为个人，在以下几种情况，法院会

1、民事侵权中更易认定股东个人承担责任

2、股东实施的欺诈行为很有可能被判定为个

人承担责任

3、当公司的资本投入不足，容易认定个人承

担责任

a.零投资，股东对公司的投资为零时，通常公

司的人格会被否定

b.利润转移

4、没有遵循法人经营程序

5、总结，在以上所有的单一情况下，法院并

不会否定公司的人格制度。

C. Parent/subsidiary母子公司: If shares are held by a parent corporation, the court may pierce the veil and make the parent corporation liable for the debts of the subsidiary. [40]

1. No liability generally: Again, the

general rule is that the corporate parent

shareholder is not liable for the debts of

the subsidiary (just as individual

shareholders are not liable for the

corporation’s debts). [40]

2. Factors: But as in the

individual-shareholder case, certain

acts by the parent may cause veil piercing

to take place. Such factors include: (1)

failure to follow separate corporate

formalities for the two corporations

(e.g., both have the same board, and do not

hold separate directors’ meetings); (2)

the subsidiary and parent are operating

pieces of the same business, and the

subsidiary is undercapitalized; (3) the

public is misled about which entity is

operating which business; (4) assets are

intermingled as between parent and

subsidiary; or (5) the subsidiary is

operated in an unfair manner (e.g., forced

to sell at cost to parent). [41]

D. Brother/sister ("enterprise liability"):

Occasionally, the court may treat

brother/sister corporations (i.e., those having

a common parent) as really being one individual

enterprise, in which case each will be liable for

the debts of its "siblings." This is the

"enterprise liability" theory. [42]

C.母子公司，如果公司的股权由母公司控制，法院有

可能会否定子公司的独立人格，由母公司对债务承担

连带责任

1、无责任，正常情况下，母公司并不需要对子公司

的债务承担那连带责任

2、认定母公司承担的要素：（1）母子公司间违反了

独立公司的运营规则(2)母子公司从事相同的业务，

且子公司的资本投入不足（3）公众对公司的实际经

营主体产生了误解（4）母子公司间财产混淆不清（5）

子公司以非公平的方式从事经营活动

D．兄弟公司/姊妹公司：有时候，法院可能认定兄弟

公司（如，两个公司拥有同一个母公司）为一个独立

的企业，在一些案例中，他们对兄弟公司的债务也负

有责任。这就是“企业责任”理论。

VI. INSIDER CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY (INCLUDING EQUITABLE SUBORDINATION)

A. Disallowance in bankruptcy: A bankruptcy

court may disallow an insider’s claim entirely

if fairness requires. (Example: The insider

claims that his entire capital contribution is

a "loan," but the court finds that some or all

should be treated as non-repayable "equity" in

the bankruptcy proceeding.) [44]

B. Equitable subordination衡平居次:

Alternatively, the bankruptcy court may

recognize the insider’s claims against the

corporation, but will make these claims come

after payment of all other creditors. Many of the

same factors used for piercing the corporate

veil (e.g., inadequate capitalization) will

lead to this "equitable subordination" in

bankruptcy. [44]

VI．破产中的内部权利请求（衡平居次）

A、破产案的驳回：根据公平原则，一个破产法庭可能不会支持全部的内部权利

请求。（举例说：出资人请求他的全部资本都为湘公司的贷款，但法庭在破产程序中发现一些或全部的资本应该被视为是不可偿还的股东出资。）

B、横平居次，同样，破产法庭可以支持向公司提出的内部权利请求，但其实现

将在所有的其它对公司的债权实现之后。许多导致揭开公司面纱（如，不充足资本）的事实，也将导致“横平居次”在破产案中的发生。

C、