期刊文献+

合理期待原则下的美国股东权益救济制度及其启示 被引量:18

The American Reliefs for Aggrieved Shareholders' Rights and Interests Based on Reasonable Expectations Rule and their Implications
原文传递
导出
摘要 正视封闭公司股东所面临的不同于公众公司的现实,美国公司法律实践日益信赖股东合理期待,常常以小股东权益为中心来界定压制行为,创设和发展了以股东合理期待为基础的股东权益救济制度,并逐渐形成了较为成熟的合理期待认定标准,尽可能地为受到不公平待遇的股东提供广泛的救济,以有效地保护受侵害股东的权益。基于合理期待落空而对股东权益进行救济的美国公司法理念与法律实践值得我们借鉴以完善我国股东权益救济制度。 Addressing the different reality of closed corporations from public corporations, legal practices in the U. S. increasingly rely on reasonable expectations of shareholders and often define oppression acts centering on minority share- holders' fights and interests, which has created and developed lots of reliefs for aggrieved shareholders' rights and interestsbased on their reasonable expectations and has gradually evolved into a more mature standard of judging whether the expec- tations are reasonable or not to provide a broad relief to shareholders suffering unfair treatment as much as possible in order to effectively protect the rights and interests of aggrieved shareholders. We may learn a lot from the U.S. company law con-cepts and legal practices of reliefs based on the frustration of shareholders' reasonable expectations to improve the corre- sponding legal rules in China' s company law.
作者 杨署东
机构地区 重庆大学法学院
出处 《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第2期122-129,共8页 Science of Law:Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
基金 教育部人文社会科学研究项目基金资助项目(09XJA820015)
关键词 合理期待原则 封闭公司 股东权益救济 reasonable expectations rule closed corporations reliefs for aggrieved shareholders' rights and interest
  • 相关文献

参考文献34

  • 1In Application of Topper,107Misc.2d25(Sup1980).
  • 2Matter of Kemp&Beatley,Inc.,64N.Y.2d63,484(1984).
  • 3Meiselman v.Meiselman,309N.C.279,307S.E.2d551(1983).
  • 4Kirikides v.Atlas Food Systems&Services,Inc.,343S.C.587,541S.E.2d257(2001).
  • 5Scott v.Trans-System,Inc.,148Wash.2d701,64P.3d1(2003).
  • 6McCallum v.Rosen’s Diversified,Inc.,153F3d701(8thCir.1998).
  • 7Estes v.Idea Engineering&Fabrication,Inc.,250Mich.App.270,649N.W.2d84,92(2002).
  • 8Berreman v.West Pub.Co.,615N.W.2d362,374(Minn.Ct.App.2000).
  • 9Miehaud v.Morris,603So.2d886(Ala.1992).
  • 10Mardikos v.Arger,116Misc.2d1028,457N.Y.S.2d371(Sup1982).

二级参考文献64

共引文献22

引证文献18

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部