涉外案件中公司股東責任的法律適用──從雷曼案出發

The Applicable Law for Shareholder's Liability in a Foreign Case: The Lehman Brothers Cases and Beyond

在雷曼兄弟破產後，臺灣本土銀行及投資人受到嚴重的損害。為能迅速取得賠償，兩家臺灣的銀行對分別設立於英國及香港的兩家雷曼子公司求償。銀行主張雷曼兄弟的作為已構成侵權行為並違反契約，基於反向揭穿公司面紗原則，其子公司亦應一同負責。本文檢視了此二案件中關於衝突法則的適用。其首先探討外國公司在臺灣的地位，並認為就股東有限責任及揭穿公司面紗而言，公司內部事務原則應屬正確之法律適用。雖然如此，臺灣公司法中之揭穿公司面紗原則的規定應對外國公司有所適用，蓋依公司法之規定，外國公司在法令限制內，與本國公司有同一之權利能力。就反向揭穿公司面紗而言，其一方面與揭穿公司面紗關係密切，另方面又似乎已超出公司內部事務原則的適用範圍之外。有鑑於此，本文認為公司內務事務原則於此雖有適用可能，但法官如認其他準據法更為適當，仍應有選擇之空間。

Domestic banks and local investors in Taiwan incurred substantial losses as a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. For the purpose of immediate recovery, two of the domestic banks brought suits in Taiwan against Lehman Brothers’ two subsidiaries which were incorporated, respectively, in Hong Kong and United Kingdom. The banks claimed that Lehman Brothers’ conduct constituted torts and breached their contracts, and the subsidiaries should be held responsible on the theory of reverse piercing corporate veil. This paper examines the application of conflict-of-laws rules in these two cases. It first discusses the status of foreign corporations in Taiwan and argues that the internal affairs doctrine is the correct approach for the issues of shareholders’ limited liability and piercing corporate veil. However, the piercing corporate veil rule of the Taiwan Company Law should be applied because foreign corporations should be subject to the same restrictions to legal capacity imposed on domestic corporations. In terms of reverse piercing corporate veil, it has a close relationship between piercing corporate veil, but its operation seems beyond the reach of the internal affairs doctrine. In this light, this paper suggests that the law of incorporation may be chosen for reverse piercing corporate veil, but the judge is allowed to choose other applicable laws as she sees fit.