English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109952/140887 (78%)
Visitors : 46353676      Online Users : 1061
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/147278
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147278


    Title: 中國對賭協議之適法性:以履行障礙爭議為核心
    A Research on the China`s bet-on agreement: hindrance to the performance
    Authors: 郭羅敦尉
    Kuo Lo, Tun-Wei
    Contributors: 王文杰
    Wang, Wen Chieh
    郭羅敦尉
    Kuo Lo, Tun-Wei
    Keywords: 對賭協議
    估值調整
    資本維持原則
    bet-on agreement
    valuation adjustment
    capital maintenance
    Date: 2023
    Issue Date: 2023-09-01 16:23:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 對賭協議是一種新型商事契約,以估值調整條款為核心,用於解決投融資雙方的資訊不對稱問題,以促成交易,進而活絡整體融資市場,幫助企業成長。對賭協議具有射倖、期權、條件、擔保等多種契約屬性,與可轉換公司債、特別股之間存有部分差異。
    對賭協議被廣泛運用於中國的投資實務,更有凡投資必對賭的說法。對賭協議亦引發不少爭議,因此累積大量相關司法實務,最初法院在海富案中作出「與公司對賭無效」之見解,而後華工案中透過具體審查區分對賭協議的契約有效性與可履行性,最後法院作出九民紀要的司法解釋,統一了對於對賭協議的審判原則。本文一一梳理上開判決見解,並比較分析其中差異,並進一步探究對賭協議所面臨的「履行障礙」,解構其癥結在於與債權人保障制度之間的衝突。
    另一方面,探究美國法中的償還股及償付能力測試標準,闡述分析德拉瓦州法院近年來的相關判決,乃以受託人義務及經營判斷原則作為判決原則,並深入其見解之流變與形成原因。而後,橫向對比對賭協議及特別股、資本維持原則及償付能力測試標準之間的異同。最後,回歸我國公司法,分析對賭協議的適法性,並且檢視現行公司法制,提出改進方向的建議。
    A bet-on agreement is a novel type of commercial contract centered around valuation adjustment clauses, used to address the issue of information asymmetry between companies and investor. It facilitates transactions, thereby invigorating the overall financing market and aiding business growth. Bet-on agreements encompass various contractual attributes such as aleatory, options, conditions, and guarantees, differing in certain aspects from convertible bonds and preferred stocks.
    Bet-on agreements have been widely utilized in China, with some even referring to the concept of " Bet-on in every investment." However, Bet-on agreements have also sparked considerable controversies, leading to the accumulation of relevant lawsuit cases. Initially, courts provided the viewpoint in the Haifu case that "companies should not bet-on with companies." Subsequently, in the Huagong case, the validity and enforceability of bet-on agreements were distinguished through specific examinations, culminating in the judicial interpretation provided in the “Minutes of the National Court Work Conference for Civil and Commercial Trials 2019”, which unified the principles for judging bet-on agreements. This article systematically reviews these aforementioned judicial opinions, compares and analyzes their differences, and further explores the hindrance to the performance that bet-on agreements face, deconstructing the sticking point between creditor and investor .
    On the other hand, the article delves into redemption shares and insolvency tests standards in U.S. law, elucidating recent relevant judgments in Delaware courts. These judgments are based on principles of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule, and the article deeply examines the changes and reasons behind these perspectives. Following that, a horizontal comparison is drawn between bet-on agreements and preferred stocks, capital maintenance principles and insolvency test standards, in order to highlight their similarities and differences. Finally, returning to corporate law in Taiwan, analyzing the legality of bet-on agreements, evaluates the current corporate legal framework, and provides suggestions for improvement directions.
    Reference: 一、中文參考文獻
    (一)專書
    1.史尚寬(1961),《債法總論》。
    2.李壽雙(2009),《中國式私募股權基金: 募集與設立》,法律出版社。
    3.林誠二(2010),《債法總論新解:體系化解說(下)》。
    4.高其才(2015),《法理學》。
    5.最高人民法院民事審判第二庭(2019年),《「全國法院民商事審判工作會議紀要」理解與適用》
    6.黃日燦(2015年),《私募股權基金入門:PE的第一堂課》。
    7.劉宗榮(2021年),《保險法:保險契約法暨保險業法》,修訂五版。
    8.劉連煜(2022年),《現代公司法》。
    (二)期刊
    1.丁輝(2017),〈認繳登記制下公司減資制度研究〉,《河北法學》,6期,頁186。
    2.王文宇(2002),〈商業組織之核心法則-以公司, 信託, 合夥為例〉,《法令月刊》,53卷1期,頁5。
    3.王文宇、林仁光(2001),〈公司資本制度與股票面額之研究〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,73期,頁27。
    4.王東光(2023),〈對賭協議的效力及司法裁判路徑〉,《現代法學》,45卷3期,頁134。
    5.王立新、王傑兵、馮海(2018),〈不同比減資應以全體股東一致決為原則〉,《人民司法(案例)》,35期,頁68。
    6.王賀(2012),〈誠實信用——破解 “對賭協議” 困惑之道〉,《證券法苑》,2期,頁287。
    7.王培君(2016),〈股東異質化視角下對賭協定效力研究〉,《私法研究》,19卷342。
    8.王毓瑩(2021),〈對賭糾紛裁判的法律適用邏輯與訴訟體系定位〉,《華東政法大學學報》,5期,頁113。
    9.孫豔軍(2011),〈對賭協議的價值判斷與我國多層次資本市場的發展〉,《上海金融》,9期,頁45。
    10.朱德芳(2008),〈論公開發行公司之資本結構重組與公司治理: 以形式減資與私募增資為核心〉,《臺大法學論叢》,37卷2期,頁96。
    11.吳飛飛(2023),〈論“人走股留”糾紛裁判規則的適用困境與改進〉,《現代法學》,1期,頁141。
    12.宋毅、王苗苗(2018),〈對賭協議的效力認定〉,《人民司法(應用),》,16期,頁71。
    13.張鵬飛(2017),〈風險投資中領售權條款法律問題研究〉,《金融法苑》,1期,頁85。
    14.李岩(2009),〈對賭協議法律屬性之探討〉,《金融法苑》,2期,頁141。
    15.李芳芳(2000),〈論期貨經紀公司私下對沖, 對賭的法律責任〉,《東南亞研究》,4期,頁40。
    16.李建偉、岳萬兵(2022),〈董事對債權人的信義義務——公司資本制度視角的考察〉,《中國政法大學學報》,21期,頁100-112。
    17.汪洋(2020),〈「九民會紀要」關於“對賭協議”規定的遺留問題及應對策略〉,《法制與社會》,20期,頁43。
    18.沈竹鶯、楊暉、黃佩蕾、徐佳雲(2022),〈私募基金糾紛的裁判邏輯與法律適用——基於上海法院2014-2020年案件審理情況分析〉,《證券法苑》,2期,頁91。
    19.周曉冬(2021),〈回購型對賭的裁判思路剖析及規則重構〉,《政法學刊》,2期,頁95。
    20.周遊(2020),〈對賭協議糾紛處理中 “履行可能性” 問題之省思〉,《證券法苑》,1期,頁210。
    21.林少偉(2022),〈程式型公司法的證成與實現〉,《當代法學》,1期,頁130。
    22.林國全(2007),〈特別股之收回〉,《月旦法學教室》,52期,頁30。
    23.林國全(2011),〈2011 年公司法修正條文簡析〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,185期,頁6。
    24.施建州(2006),〈法定資本制度之理論辯證-美國法與歐盟法之對照〉,《財產法暨經濟法》,8期,頁98。
    25.柯芳枝(1973),〈償還股之研究〉,《臺大法學論叢》,3卷1期,頁118。
    26.柳經緯(2012),〈當代中國私法進程中的民商事司法解釋〉,《法學家》,2期,頁87。
    27.苗炎(2023),〈論司法解釋的性質和效力位階〉,《中外法學》,2期,頁425。
    28.鄭榮鳴(2004),〈中外企業融資結構比較分析〉,《會計研究》,7期,頁67-71。
    29.孫靜曲、查競傳(2019),〈論新型商事契約視角下估值調整協議之認定〉,《財金法學研究》,2:3期,頁430。
    30.徐珊珊(2006),〈美國式創業融資契約在中國法下的障礙與實現〉,《國際商務研究》,3期,頁41-46。
    31.顧衛平(2001),〈上市公司為何偏好股權融資〉,《上市公司》,8期,頁13-15。
    32.張永健(2015),〈財產獨立與資產分割之理論架構〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,50期,頁98。
    33.張俊勇(2023),〈論公司法修訂中減資制度的完善〉,《法律適用》,1期,頁91。
    34.盛學軍、吳飛飛(2020),〈中國式對賭:異化與歸正——基於契約法與組織法的雙重考察〉,《證券法苑》,2期,頁222-223。
    35.符望(2013),〈對 PE 估值調整協議效力的再思考——從甘肅世桓 “願賭不服輸” 案看估值調整協議的 “堵” 與 “疏”〉,《證券法苑》,1期,頁346。
    36.郭大維,公司減資、經營權爭奪與少數股東之保護(2023),〈公司減資、經營權爭奪與少數股東之保護〉,《月旦會計實務研究》,62期,頁34。
    37.陳銘宇(2021),〈論公司回購減資中債權人保護規則的完善〉,《證券法苑》,2期,頁265。
    38.傅穹(2011),〈對賭協定的法律構造與定性觀察〉,《政法論叢》,6期,頁68。
    39.彭冰(2012),〈“對賭協議” 第一案分析〉,《北京仲裁》,3期,頁197。
    40.彭真(1955),〈中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會的工作報告〉。
    41.謝浩然(2014),〈從海富投資案看新的商事審判理念的確立〉,《海峽法學》,3期,頁96。
    42.謝海霞(2010),〈對賭協定的法律性質探析〉,《法學雜誌》,1期,頁73-76。
    43.黃正一(2003),〈淺談特別股於私募中之應用〉,《法令月刊》,54卷11期,頁45-49。
    44.黃朝琮(2016),〈受託義務之對象〉,《政大法學評論》,145期,頁24。
    45.黃朝琮(2020),〈論經營判斷法則之實務見解〉,《中原財經法學》,45期,頁218。
    46.楊明宇(2014),〈私募股權投資中對賭協議性質與合法性探析——兼評海富投資案〉,《證券市場導報》,2期,頁65。
    47.熊智、楊澤(2013),〈私募股權投資中對賭協定的定性及效力的司法認定——以 “對賭協議無效第一案”立論〉,《北京仲裁》,2期,頁24-38。
    48.劉俊海(2022),〈目標公司對賭條款無效的法理證成〉,《河北法學》,4期,頁51。
    49.劉昭辰(2005),〈履行利益, 信賴利益〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,116期,頁96。
    50.劉紹樑(2005),〈法定資本制度的變遷〉,收於:現代公司法制之新課題─賴英照大法官六秩華誕祝賀論文集》,頁156,
    51.劉連煜(2007),〈董事責任與經營判斷法則〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,17期,頁182。
    52.劉凱湘(2020),〈構建中國大陸類別股制度的原則、依據與方案〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,307期,頁108。
    53.劉忠、王會芳(2015),〈關於完善對賭協議監管措施的建議〉,《證券市場導報》,5期,頁69。
    54.劉燕(2020),〈“對賭協定” 的裁判路徑及政策選擇——基於 PE/VC 與公司對賭場景的分析〉,《法學研究》,42卷2期,頁128-148。
    55.劉燕、王秋豪(2020),〈公司資本流出與債權人利益保護——法律路徑與選擇〉,《財經法學》,6期,頁17。
    56.劉燕(2015),〈重構「禁止抽逃出資」規則的公司法理基礎(上)〉,《法律與新金融》,4期,頁11。
    57.劉燕(2015),〈重構「禁止抽逃出資」規則的公司法理基礎(中)〉,《法律與新金融》,5期,頁6。
    58.潘林(2014),〈“對賭協議第一案” 的法律經濟學分析〉,《法制與社會發展》,20卷4期,頁171-181。
    59.潘林(2020),〈股份回購中資本規制的展開--基於董事會中心主義的考察〉,《法商研究》,37卷4期,頁114。
    60.蔣大興(2015),〈質疑法定資本制之改革〉,《中國法學》,6期,頁139。
    61.羅青軍(2009),〈對賭協議: 內涵, 風險收益及其決策模式〉,《浙江金融》,6期,頁37。

    (三)學位論文
    1.江佑庭(2021),《公司法下債權人保護之比較法研究-以公司分派行為為中心》,國立政治大學法律學系碩士學位論文。
    2.吳偉明(2018),《對賭協議相關法律問題實證研究》,對外經濟貿易大學法學碩士學位論文。
    3.李國任(2022),《特別股收回之研究-以董事受任人義務與債權人保護為核心》,國立政治大學法律學系碩士學位論文。
    4.施建州(2005),《法定資本制概念的檢驗-以資本維持原則為中心》,輔仁大學法律博士學位論文。
    5.高士傑(2007),《創業投資之運作機制—以契約和組織為中心》,國立台灣大學法律學院碩士學位論文。
    6.曾馨儀(2006),《融資順位理論之各國比較》,國立政治大學財務管理研究所碩士學位論文。
    7.趙天嬌(2021),《對賭協議效力和履行問題研究》,南京師範大學法律碩士學位論文。
    8.黃國峯(2008),《中國私募股權基金產業的SCP研究》,臺灣大學會計與管理決策組學位論文。
    9.謝騏安(2019),《論股權估值調整機制:以中國對賭協議為核心》,國立臺灣大學法律系碩士學位論文。
    10.戰雲鴿(2020),《「九民紀要」背景下私募股權投資對賭協定法律問題再思考》,北京交通大學法律碩士學位論文。

    (四)網路資源
    1.上海市第二中級人民法院(2020)上海二中院涉“對賭”案件審判白皮書(2015-2019年). https://www.hshfy.sh.cn/css/2020/11/16/20201116153741893.pdf
    2.馬韜(2007年)凱雷收購徐工案謝幕 https://www.infzm.com/contents/2450?source=202&source_1=2449
    3.公司法全盤修正修法委員會(2016年)第四部分 問卷調查結果與分析https://www.law.nccu.edu.tw/uploads/asset/data/5fc364a2dca3a31002009614/section4.pdf
    4.漢坤律師事務所(2022)漢坤2021年度VC/PE項目數據分析報告https://www.hankunlaw.com/portal/article/index/cid/7/id/9493
    5.李耀(2022年)徵求意見稿的法律效力https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/539410792
    6.楊菲(2015年)盤點歷史上9次IPO暫停 歷次重啟後A股怎麼走? http://finance.china.com.cn/stock/dp/20151106/3429691.shtml
    7.周岐原(2014年)四十億股特別股將成高鐵經營變數https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201401160029/
    8.周曉(2014年)自治區工商局關於「企業資訊公示暫行條例」答記者40問http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-09-25/154330914190.shtml
    9.邱重威(2020年)新創與投資人的距離——早階新創如何運用CB取得第二桶金https://findit.org.tw/researchPageV2.aspx?pageId=1518
    10.鐘瑛琦(2019年)〈全國法院民商事審判工作會議紀要〉研討會在中國人民大學成功舉行https://www.civillaw.com.cn/gg/t/?id=35929
    11.徐文萍(2022)大成30週年專題研究報告系列之十一:「對賭協議」法律研究報告http://www.dachenglaw.com/file/upload/20221206/file/20221206175716_4500643cf8b842b9aa097d21322e4d07.pdf
    12.劉相文、蔡碩、張梅花、李偉(2019年)「九民會議紀要(徵求意見稿)系列解讀——當前形勢下對賭糾紛案件司法裁判要旨之探析與反思」https://www.zhonglun.com/Content/2019/09-04/1334172210.html
    13.劉陽(2023年)截至去年末私募基金管理規模達20.03萬億元. http://www.news.cn/2023-01/25/c_1129311683.htm
    14.賴荃賢(2010年)台灣創投事業之過去、現在與未來展望家族企業接班大調查https://www.slideshare.net/huforsevear/ss-21376747
    一、外文參考文獻
    (一)英文專書
    1.L. S. Black Jr. (2007). Why Corporations Choose Delaware.
    2.W. W. Bratton. (2021). Corporate Finance, Cases and Materials.
    3.N. E. B. Dennis J. Block, Stephen A. Radin. (1987). The Business Judgment Rule: Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors and Officers.
    4.F. H. Easterbrook and D. R. Fischel. (1996). The economic structure of corporate law.
    5.B. Graham, D. L. F. Dodd, S. Cottle and C. Tatham. (2009). Security analysis: Principles and technique.
    6.Manning, B., & Hanks, J. J. (1990). Legal capital.
    7.D. Kehl. (1976). Corporate Dividends.
    8.M. H. Miller. (1997). Merton Miller on derivatives.
    9.R. A. Posner. (2014). Economic analysis of law.
    10.E. P. Welch, A. J. Turezyn and R. S. Saunders. (2010). Folk on the Delaware General Corporation Law.
    (二)英文期刊
    1.R. Admati and P. Pfleiderer. (1994). Robust financial contracting and the role of venture capitalists. The Journal of Finance, 49(2), 371-402.
    2.G. A. Akerlof. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The quarterly journal of economics, 84(3), 488-500.
    3.J. Armour. (2000). Share capital and creditor protection: efficient rules for a modern company law. The Modern Law Review(3), 374.
    4.J. Armour. (2000). Share capital and creditor protection: efficient rules for a modern company law. The Modern Law Review, 63(3), 360.
    5.J. Armour. (2000). Share capital and creditor protection: efficient rules for a modern company law. The Modern Law Review, 63(3), 367.
    6.R. C. Art. (1988). Corporate Shares and Distributions in a System Beyond Par: Financial Provisions of Oregon`s New Corporation Act. Willamette Law Review, 24, 209-210.
    7.L. S. Bagwell. (1991). Share repurchase and takeover deterrence. The Rand Journal of Economics, 72-88.
    8.D. G. Baird and T. H. Jackson. (1985). Fraudulent conveyance law and its proper domain. Vanderbilt Law Review, 38, 829.
    9.R. d. R. Barondes. (1998). Fiduciary duties of officers and directors of distressed corporations. George Mason Law Review, 7, 66-71.
    10.S. Bhattacharya. (1979). Imperfect information, dividend policy, and" the bird in the hand" fallacy. The bell journal of economics, 260.
    11.S. Bigler, and Jennifer Veet Barrett. (2012). Drafting a Mandatory Put Provision for Preferred Stock after ThoughtWorks. Bus. L. Today, 1-4.
    12.S. Black and R. J. Gilson. (1998). Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(3), 261.
    13.F. Black and M. Scholes. (1972). The valuation of option contracts and a test of market efficiency. The Journal of Finance, 27(2), 399-400.
    14.J. Boness. (1964). Elements of a theory of stock-option value. Journal of Political Economy, 72(2), 163-175.
    15.R. A. Booth. (2005). Capital requirements in United States corporation law. U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper(2005-64), 19.
    16.S. E. Boschner and A. L. Simmerman. (2016). The Venture Capital Board Member`s Survival Guide: Handling Conflicts Effectively While Wearing Two Hats. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 41, 17-26.
    17.R. S. Bradstreet. (2015). Should Creditors Rely on the Solvency and Liquidity Threshold for Protection? A South African Case Study. Journal of African Law, 59(1), 127-131.
    18.W. W. Bratton. (2006). Bond covenants and creditor protection: Economics and law, theory and practice, substance and process. European Business Organization Law Review, 7(1), 41.
    19.W. W. Bratton and M. L. Wachter. (2013). A theory of preferred stock. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1865.
    20.M. J. Brennan, and Eduardo S. Schwartz. . (1988). "The case for convertibles.". Journal of Applied Corporate Finance(1.2), 55-64.
    21.M. J. Brennan and E. S. Schwartz. (1980). Analyzing convertible bonds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 15(4), 907-929.
    22.Z. Chong and Z. Luyue. (2014). The financing challenges of startups in China. International Business and Management, 9(2), 132.
    23.S. Constantinides. (2002). Auditors’, bankers’ and insolvency practitioners’“going‐concern” opinion logit model. Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(8), 487.
    24.R. Daines. (2001). Does Delaware law improve firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 62(3), 525-558.
    25.M. J. Dix. (1958). Adequate Risk Capital: The Consideration for the Benefits of Separate Incorporation. Nw. UL Rev., 53, 478.
    26.E. M. Dodd. (1941). Purchase and Redemption by a Corporation of Its Own Shares: The Substantive Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 89(6), 704-705. doi:10.2307/3308683
    27.E. M. Dodd Jr. (1940). Purchase and Redemption by a Corporation of Its Own Shares: The Substantive Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 89, 699.
    28.A. Engert. (2006). Life without legal capital: lessons from American Law. Ludwig Maximilians Universität München. Working Paper., 24.
    29.L. Enriques. (2006). EC company law directives and regulations: How trivial are they. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 27, 36.
    30.L. Enriques and M. Gelter. (2006). How the old world encountered the new one: regulatory competition and cooperation in European corporate and bankruptcy law. Tulane Law Review, 81(612), 577.
    31.L. Enriques and J. R. Macey. (2000). Creditors versus capital formation: the case against the European legal capital rules. Cornell Law Review, 86, 1169.
    32.L. Enriques and J. R. Macey. (2000). Creditors versus capital formation: the case against the European legal capital rules. Cornell Law Review, 86, 1189.
    33.D. R. Fischel. (1982). Corporate Governance Movment, The. Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1270.
    34.I. Fox. (2020). Protecting All corporate stakeholders: Fraudulent transfer law as a check on corporate distributions. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 44, 103-106.
    35.I. Fox. (2020). Protecting All corporate stakeholders: Fraudulent transfer law as a check on corporate distributions. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 44, 85.
    36.J. M. Fried and M. Ganor. (2006). Agency costs of venture capitalist control in startups. NYUL rev., 81, 982-986.
    37.R. J. Gilson. (1984). Value creation by business lawyers: Legal skills and asset pricing. The Yale Law Journal, 94(2), 300.
    38.R. J. Gilson. (1996). Corporate governance and economic efficiency: When do institutions matter. Wash. ULQ, 74, 330-334.
    39.R. J. Gilson. (2002). Engineering a venture capital market: lessons from the American experience. Stanford Law Review, 55, 1078.
    40.V. P. Goldberg. (2000). In Search of Best Efforts: Reinterpreting Bloor v. Falstaff. . Louis ULJ, 44, 1465-1485.
    41.E. Goldstein. (1979). Changes in the Model Business Corporation Act—Amendments to Financial Provisions. The Business Lawyer, 34(4), 1867-1868.
    42.D. E. Griggs. (1981). Corporation Law: Delaware Supreme Court Exercises Its Own Business Judgment. University of Dayton Law Review, 7, 488-489.
    43.A. Haaker. (2012). The future of European creditor protection and capital maintenance from a German perspective. German Law Journal, 13(6), 642.
    44.H. Hansmann and R. Kraakman. (2000). The essential role of organizational law. Yale Law Journal, 110, 390.
    45.T. Hellmann. (1998). The allocation of control rights in venture capital contracts. The Rand Journal of Economics, 58-61.
    46.M. C. Jensen. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American economic review, 76(2), 323-329.
    47.H. Junior and O. Wendell. (1997). The path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 110(5), 991.
    48.C. R. Korsmo. (2012). Venture capital and preferred stock. Brooklyn Law Review, 78, 1183-1186.
    49.J. T. Laster. (2013). The Effect of Stockholder Approval on Enhanced Scrutiny. William Mitchell Law Review, 40, 1486.
    50.T. A. Luehrman. (1998). Strategy as a portfolio of real options. Harvard Business Review, 76, 89-90.
    51.F. S. Machado. (2009). Effective Creditor Protection in Private Companies: Mandatory Minimum Capital Rules or Ex Post Mechanisms? Available at SSRN 1568731, 20-24.
    52.J. G. MacIntosh. (1993). Designing an efficient fiduciary law. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 43(3), 451-452.
    53.B. Manning. (1983). Business Judgement Rule and the Director`s Duty of Attention: Time for Reality. Business Lawyer, 39, 1486.
    54.M. Miola. Legal Capital and Limited Liability Companies: The European Perspective’(2005). ECFR, 4, 427.
    55.K. F. Mtwebana. (2011). The Regulation of Companies’ Capital in the European Union: What is the Current State of Affairs? European Business Law Review, 22(2), 260.
    56.M. Z. Muhammad, A. K. Char, M. R. bin Yasoa and Z. Hassan. (2010). Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) competing in the global business environment: A case of Malaysia. International Business Research, 3(1), 66-72.
    57.S. Myers. (1977). Determinants of Corporate Borrowing Journal of Financial Economics.—1977. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147-175.
    58.S. C. Myers and N. S. Majluf. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187-190.
    59.C. A. Peterson and N. W. Hawker. (1997). Does Corporate Law Matter-Legal Capital Restrictions on Stock Distributions. Akron Law Review, 31, 177-179.
    60.R. L. Phillips. (1977). The Concept of a Corporation`s Purchase of Its Own Shares. Alta. L. Rev., 15, 338.
    61.S. D. Prowse. (1998). The economics of the private equity market. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 21.
    62.J. M. Reid. (1988). Legal acceptance of accounting principles in Great Britain and the United States: some lessons from history. Accounting historians journal, 15(1), 10.
    63.J. Rickford. (2004). Reforming capital report of the interdisciplinary group on capital maintenance. EuR. Bus. l. REv., 15, 971.
    64.J. Rickford. (2006). Legal approaches to restricting distributions to shareholders: balance sheet tests and solvency tests. European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR), 7(1), 177.
    65.S. Sanga and E. L. Talley. (2022). Don`t go chasing waterfalls: Fiduciary duties in venture capital backed startups. European Corporate Governance Institute-Law Working Paper(634), 8.
    66.H. J. Sapienza. (1992). When do venture capitalists add value? Journal of business venturing, 7(1), 13.
    67.W. Schön. (2004). The future of legal capital. European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR), 5(3), 434.
    68.J. C. Stein. (1992). Convertible bonds as backdoor equity financing. Journal of Financial Economics, 32(1), 12-15.
    69.L. E. Strine. (2013). Poor pitiful or potently powerful preferred? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161(7), 2032.
    70.A. J. Triantis and G. G. Triantis. (1994). Conversion rights and the design of financial contracts. Wash. ULQ, 72, 1241.
    71.M. Ueda. (2004). Banks versus venture capital: Project evaluation, screening, and expropriation. The Journal of Finance, 59(2), 602.
    72.G. Wagner. (2006). Distributions to shareholders and fraudulent transfer law. European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR), 7(1), 221.
    73.A. Winton and V. Yerramilli. (2008). Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(1), 52.
    74.A. Winton and V. Yerramilli. (2008). Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics(1), 51-53.
    75.B. S. Yamey. (1940). Aspects of the law relating to company dividends. Mod. L. Rev., 4, 274.
    76.M. Yano. (2008). Competitive fairness and the concept of a fair price under Delaware law on M&A. International Journal of Economic Theory, 4(2), 175.
    (三)英文網路資源
    1.K. E. L. Daniel Wolf & Jon A. Ballis. Just How Preferred is Your Preferred? https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/05/22/just-how-preferred-is-your-preferred/
    2.GFSR. (2009). International Monetary Fund, Global Financial Stability Report. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2016/12/31/Global-Financial-Stability-Report-April-2009-Responding-to-the-Financial-Crisis-and-22583
    3.E. Houben. (2002). Venture capital, double-sided adverse selection, and double-sided moral hazard. https://ssrn.com/abstract=365841
    4.A. Lee. (2013). Welcome to the unicorn club: Learning from billion-dollar startups. Cowboy Ventures (blog). https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/02/welcome-to-the-unicorn-club/
    5.WSGR. (2019). THE ENTREPRENEURS REPORT Private Company Financing Trends Full-Year 2018. https://www.wsgr.com/a/web/w47kSyTTgRwVPffCe8gk6c/entrepreneursreport-ye-2021.pdf
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    108651012
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108651012
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    101201.pdf1821KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback