公司集團背景下的法人格否認：一個實證研究

通過對2006—2015年間我國公司集團背景下刺破公司面紗的案件進行實證分析可見：案件共有312個，近年來數量增長明顯，集中在經濟發達地區，但經濟不發達地區的刺破率更高；與理論預測相反，公司集團中的刺破率並不高於一般水準，侵權案件的刺破率也不高於合同案件；混同是最常用的刺破理由，但刺破率最低；資本顯著不足的適用最少，但刺破率最高。各種刺破理由經常同時適用，通過logit回歸分析發現，業務混同的影響強於財產混同和人員混同；對於業務混同進行控制後，財產混同、欺詐或不當行為和過度控制的重要性凸顯。《九民紀要》在一定程度上契合了上述研究發現，但還需完善，在公司集團背景下不應過度依賴法人格否認制度來保護債權人，還應在規則模式層面進行改革。

This paper empirically examines China’s veil-piercing cases in the context of corporate groups for a ten-year period of 2006 to 2015, and compares with overseas experiences. A total of 312 cases were found and there was an increase in the number of cases in recent years. More cases come from economically more developed regions but the piercing rate is higher in economically less developed regions. Contrary to theoretical predictions, the piercing rate in the context of corporate groups is not higher than the overall rate, and the piercing rate in tort cases is not higher than that in contract cases. Commingling is the most frequently used ground for veil-piercing, but with the lowest piercing rate; undercapitalization is the least used ground but produces the highest piercing rate. Multiple grounds are often resorted to concurrently, and through logic regression analysis, it is found that business commingling has more impact than asset or personnel commingling, and after controlling for business commingling, asset commingling, fraud or improper conduct, and undue control have more impact. The minutes of the 9 thconference on civil and commercial trial are consistent, to some degree, with the above findings, but there is room for improvement. In the context of corporate groups, we should not rely too much on veil-piercing for creditor protection and instead ought to have reforms of regulatory models.