新公司法解釋與適用──強化公司治理

The Interpretation and Application of New Company Act–Enhancement of Corporate Governance

我國公司法於2018年進行大幅度翻修，並於同年11月1日正式施行，修法範圍的廣度及深度謂為近年之最，其中攸關企業之穩健發展的公司治理部分，為預防經營者濫權而有侵害投資人及利害關係人之權益，修法方向係加強監督經營者之責任，新法賦予過半數董事即得召集董事會之權限，未來將可杜絕董事長不為召集董事會而致公司決策經營停擺之僵局；而為減少我國公司經營上常見有權者無責之弊端，本次修法亦將實質董事制度適用於公司法內所有之公司，而不再限縮於公開發行公司；基於英美法之衡平法理，將我國2013年引進之揭穿公司面紗原則擴大適用及於有限公司，除了作為公司債權人權益之保障手段外，亦有嚇阻濫用公司制度之功能；為鼓勵投資人勇於進行投資，落實建立強化保護少數股東之制度，以降低少數股東代位訴訟門檻之方式，使少數股東得以透過訴訟方式制衡監督公司之經營階層等，可謂呼應學者長期以來提倡之修法方向或解決實務上面臨之難題。然而，本次修法仍有若干問題未能一併修正完成，例如影子董事定義缺乏彈性、實質董事與關係企業規範發生競合時之適用問題、揭穿公司面紗原則並無絕對要件致在個案上之適用疑義、少數股東代位訴訟是否適用於追訴實質董事責任等，均有待實務運作後再予進行調整及修正。

The Taiwan Company Act had been amended significantly in 2018and became effective on November 1st of the same year. Both the scopeand content of the amendment are much greater than the recent others. Forcorporate governance, the amendment has strengthened the responsibilityof directors, preventing them from abusing their power to infringe uponthe right of investors or stakeholders. The amendment shall enable half ofthe directors to convene a board meeting. It could eliminate the deadlockof business managing caused by a chairman refusing to convene the boardmeeting. Besides, the regulation of de facto/shadow directors applies to alltypes of company rather than to simply public companies in order to mitigateabuses of managing power without taking responsibility. Based on theprinciple of equity law of the English common law system, the doctrine ofpiercing the corporate veil, introduced into Taiwan in 2013, further appliesto limited liability companies for protecting the interests of companies’creditors and deterring the principals from abusing corporate system. Toencourage people to invest, the amendment enhances the protection for minority shareholders. It has reduced the threshold of derivative suit,which empowers minority shareholders to balance against and to supervisemanagement by litigation. The amendment does correspond to the trend ofacademic advocacy and solve the practical hardship. However, some issuesremain unsolved along with the amendment. For example, the definitionof shadow director is still lack of flexibility, the conflict and merge ofregulations between affiliated company and de facto director, the elementsof piercing corporate veil doctrine should not be statutorized and mayraise issues when applying to a real case, and whether the derivative suitshall be filed against a de facto/shadow director, etc. Further amendmenton these issues shall rely on practical operations.