2021年公司法與證券交易法發展回顧

Developments in the Law in 2021: Corporate Law and Securities Exchange Act

新冠疫情雖然從2019年底就開始出現並逐漸肆虐全球，但對我國而言，可以說一直到了2021年，才真正感受到疫情的可怕。公司法亦因此修正。在2015年、2018年兩次修正後，閉鎖性股份有限公司與非公開發行公司可以藉由視訊方式或其他經中央主管機關公告之方式舉行股東會，但公開發行公司則不在允許之列，其股東會僅能以實體召開方式為之。隨著2021年修正草案的通過，立法者要求證券主管機關，亦即金融監督管理委員會，應制定法令以使公開發行公司得以視訊方式召開股東會。 2021年7月1日開始運作的商業法院似乎也因為疫情的關係，導致這半年的收案量極低。誕生未久的商業法院因此招來強烈且不甚公平的批判。事實上，商業法院做出的幾個關於公司經營權爭奪的裁定，都展現出其定紛止爭的功效。本文認為，未來或許可以據此重新思考商業法院的定位，將商業法院的焦點轉至公司經營權爭奪案件。 最高法院在內線交易犯罪所得計算的統一見解，以及在財報不實損害賠償計算上採取淨損差額法的突破，都值得高度重視。兩者的比較，將可以讓吾人進一步思考制度的設計與法律解釋的選擇。此外，最高法院在減資決議方式上的見解，推翻主管機關長期以來的看法。最高法院的見解可以說是少數股東保護的一大勝利。其後續發展，也值得關注。

While the COVID-19 Pandemic began to emerge at the end of 2019 and quickly spread around the world, the horror of the epidemic was not really felt in Taiwan until 2021. The Company Law is among those which were amended in response to the Pandemic. The 2015 and 2018 amendments of the Company Law changed the rule requiring all shareholder meetings be held physically. The amendments enabled close corporations and non-public corporations, but not public corporations, to hold their shareholder meetings by means of video communication or other methods promulgated by the corporate authorities, or the Ministry of Economic Affairs. With the passage of the 2021 amendment, lawmakers require the securities authorities, or the Financial Supervisory Commission, to issue rules by which public companies now can hold virtual shareholder meeting. Partly due to the Pandemic, the Commercial Court, which began operations on July 1, 2021, had a disappointingly low caseload for its first half year. Sharp and unfair criticism is drawn on the newly-born institution. As a matter of fact, the Commercial Court has demonstrated its effectiveness in dealing with high-profile cases regarding corporate control fights. This paper suggests that the policymakers consider to reposition the Commercial Court and shift its focus on corporate control cases. The Supreme Court’s unified view on the computation of gains acquired through illegal insider trading activities and its adoption of the out-of-pocket method for the calculation of damages for financial misrepresentation are both worthy of great attention. The juxtaposition of the two opinions shed new light on the evaluation of institutional designs and the choice of legal interpretations. It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court’s opinion on the shareholder meeting quorum for capital reduction resolution disapproved the long-standing view of the corporate authorities. The Supreme Court’s opinion is heralded as a victory for the minority shareholders. Whether this opinion can bring about future statutory revisions is to be seen.