美國股東派生訴訟中對公司抗辯的司法審查標準

在美國針對董事的股東派生訴訟實踐中，公司通常基於特別訴訟委員會的決定提出駁回訴訟的動議，法院對該動議進行審查後決定是否繼續進行訴訟。法院在司法審查中對於商業判斷規則適用的不同態度，以典型案例為代表形成了四種主流的司法審查標準，即Auerbach案適用商業判斷規則的審查標準、Zapata案獨立商業判斷的審查標準、Miller案否定董事會任命的特別訴訟委員會的審查標準和Alford案全面實質的審查標準。美國股東派生訴訟中的庭前司法審查程序及司法審查標準，對我國的股東派生訴訟制度改革具有借鑒意義，即應賦予公司抗辯的權利，在庭審前增加前置性的司法審查程序，由法院在該程序中審查原告股東資格、訴前請求程序、公司利益受損事實和公司不起訴抗辯理由，在衡量了公司利益、股東利益和法律及公共利益之後，法院最終決定是否進入派生訴訟庭審程序，從而降低司法成本，平衡董事管理公司事務和股東維護公司利益的衝突，並有效防止濫訴。

In the United States, when shareholders file a derivative action against directors, corporations will typically challenge with a motion to dismiss based on the decision of the special litigation committee. The court thus has to review and decide whether the lawsuit should be continued. There are four major judicial scrutiny standards developed with regard to the application of the business judgment rule: full application of the business judgment rule in Auerbach case, application of the independent business judgment of the court in Zapata case, denial of the independence of the special litigation committee appointed by the board of directors composed of the defendant directors in Miller case, as well as the replacement hereof with a thorough substantive judicial review in Al ford case. The pretrial judicial review procedure and the judicial review standards in shareholder derivative actions in the United States will have some implications to the perfection of the shareholder derivative action system in China. Judicial review procedure shall be introduced into the pretrial process, which requires the court to review, inter alia, the eligibility of the shareholder plaintiff, the demand requirement prior to the derivative suit, the harm to the corporation, and the reasons for the refusal of the management to pursue litigation. The court must strike a balance between two competing interests in deciding whether to proceed with the derivative suit: the interest of the shareholders and that of the corporation, law and the public interest. This will help reduce judicial costs and control the abuse of process in the balancing act between the directorial autonomy and accountability, and shareholders' right to maintain the interests of the corporation.