中文

澳大利亚的股东诉讼（下）

2020-05-12

走进澳洲澳大利亚的股东诉讼（下）

作者文康律师事务所

作者：文康律师事务所

前言

文康君益诚律师联盟处理过诸多涉及澳大利亚的业务，在此基础上联盟成立了澳洲业务团队，团队成员包括多位能以英语为熟练工作语言的中国律师以及澳大利亚注册律师，其中王欲弘律师在中澳法律、投资、贸易、移民等业务领域深耕多年，还运营着以投资业务为主的澳洲基金和澳中投资平台。团队国际法律顾问祝福律师拥有澳洲律师牌照近十年，作为在澳大利亚长大的华人，熟悉中澳两国文化，处理了大量中澳跨境法律事务，经验丰富。

澳洲业务团队可为文康君益诚联盟客户提供与中国-澳大利亚有关的投资、贸易、移民、跨国婚姻、诉讼等全方位、一站式的商业和法律服务。

澳大利亚的股东诉讼

Shareholder litigation in Australia

第二部分：压制性行为

Part 2: Oppressive Conduct

针对压制性行为的诉讼通常发生在公司董事以某种程度压制某一股东或某一类股东的权利时。

Actions for oppressive conduct are commonly brought in circumstances where the director/s of a company has acted in a manner which oppresses the rights of a shareholder, or a class of shareholders.

根据2001年《公司法》第232条，在下列情况下，法院可作出命令:

(a)处理公司事务;或

(b)公司或其代表的实际或拟议的作为或不作为;或

(c)公司某些或某类股东的决议或拟议决议;

要么:

(d)违反全体股东的利益;或

(e)以该身份或其他身份压迫、不公平地损害或不公平地歧视一名或多名股东。

Under Section 232 of the Act 2001 (Cth) the court may make an order if:

(a) the conduct of a companyundefineds affairs; or

(b) an actual or proposed act or omission by or on behalf of a company; or

is either:

(d) contrary to the interests of the members as a whole; or

(e) oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members whether in that capacity or in any other capacity.

压制性行为的例子包括:

•对特定股东的利润分配不公;

•拒绝披露信息;

•公司资金使用不当;

•向公司管理层支付过高薪酬;

•不召开股东会或董事会，或不允许小股东参会;

•签订对某一特定股东有利的贷款协议;

•进行有争议的合并，且协议条款包括稀释现有股份（的内容）;

•将一家私营企业的某一股东排除在管理层之外的不当行为，导致该股东无法出售其股份。(尤其在通常由股东担任董事的私营/小型公司中。在这类公司里，法院认可某些董事之间的密切关系可能会导致对被排斥股东的压制性行为。)

Examples of oppressive conduct include:

· Unfair allocation of dividends to particular shareholders;

· Refusing access to information;

· Improper use of company funds;

· Paying excessive remuneration to the person having control of the company;

· not calling shareholder or director meetings or not allowing minority shareholders to participate in meetings;

· Entering into loan agreements with terms beneficial to a certain shareholder;

· Entering controversial mergers with terms including the dilution of existing shares;

· The improper exclusion of a shareholder in a private company from management which results in the shareholder not being able to sell his/her shares. (This is particular to private/small companies where shareholders are commonly directors. In such companies, the Courts recognise the intimate relationships between certain directors which could result in oppression of an ostrcised shareholder.)

压制性行为的成立

Establishing Oppression

根据《公司法》第233条，原告必须证明压制性行为成立，法院才能做出裁定。涉诉行为必须与公司的事务有关，且有别于个人不满。此类行为包括公司的（人员）晋升、成立、股东资格、控制、业务、贸易、转账和交易、财产、负债、利润及其他收入、进款、亏损、支出和费用，以及内部管理和程序。

For an order to be made under section 233 of the Act, the complainant must be able to establish oppression. The conduct complained of must be in relation to the affairs of the company and distinct from a personal grievance. Such conduct will include the promotion, formation, membership, control, business, trading, transactions and dealings, property, liabilities, profits and other income, receipts, losses, outgoings and expenditure, and internal management and proceedings of the company.

董事的压制性行为在法律上的证明难度较高，所提出的证据必须使法院相信，这种行为有违诚信和公平，并且是性质严重错误的。然而，这种行为不必然要求是违法行为。

Oppressive acts of directors are not easily established, the evidence produced must satisfy the court that the act lacks probity and fair dealing and is ‘burdensome, harsh and wrongful’. However, the act need not be illegal.

因此，在确定什么是压迫或不公平时，法院将考虑多数股东和少数股东的利益，确认公司的情况和股东的合理预期。

Therefore, when determining what is oppressive or unfair, the Courts will look to the interests of the majority and minority shareholders and identify the company’s background and the reasonable expectations of its shareholders.

在股东目前不能证明压制性行为成立的情况下，对股东而言，建议最好开始收集证据，并详细记录发生的不当行为，以便作为起诉理由。可以查看公司的账目，或要求提供与公司事务相关的信息。这种个人不满升级为压制性行为的情况并不少见。在小型私营企业中尤其普遍。

In circumstances where the shareholder is not currently able to establish oppression, it may be good advice for the shareholder to begin the collection of evidence and to record in detail any improper conduct in anticipation of a cause of action arising. This could be to keep track of the company’s accounts, or to request information in relation to the company’s affairs. It is not uncommon for such personal grievances to escalade into oppressive acts. This is particularly prevalent in small private companies.

救济途径

Remedies

如果法院认为所诉的行为是压制性的，《公司法》第233条赋予法院广泛的权力以作出适当的命令，其中包括:

(a)公司清算;

(b)公司现有章程被修改或废止;

(c)对与公司未来事务相关的行为进行监管;

(d)公司股东或个人购买因遗嘱或法律运行而需由其购买的公司股份;

(e)以适当减少公司股本的方式购买股份;

(f) 公司起诉、抗辩或中止特定程序;

(g)授权因遗嘱或法律运行受让公司股份的股东或个人，以公司的名义并代表公司起诉、抗辩或中止特定的诉讼程序;

(h)限制某人介入或作出特定行为;

(i)要求某人作出特定行为。

If the court has found that the act complained of is oppressive, section 233 of the Act gives the Court broad powers to make appropriate orders which includes orders for:

(a) the company be wound up;

(b) the companyundefineds existing constitution be modified or repealed;

(d) the purchase of any shares by any member or person to whom a share in the company has been transmitted by will or by operation of law;

(e) the purchase of shares with an appropriate reduction of the companyundefineds share capital;

(f) the company to institute, prosecute, defend or discontinue specified proceedings;

(g) the authorisation of a member, or a person to whom a share in the company has been transmitted by will or by operation of law, to institute, prosecute, defend or discontinue specified proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company;

(h) restraining a person from engaging in specified conduct or from doing a specified act;

(i) requiring a person to do a specified act.

在大多数情况下，股东并不寻求获得公司的控制权，或者由法院裁判公司的行为，相反，他/她通常会希望自己通过股份被买断的方式退出。如果该方案无法实施，法院根据《公司法》第233条作出公司清算命令的情况并不少见。

In most circumstances the shareholder does not seek to gain control of the Company or for the course of the Company’s conduct be determined by the Court, rather, he/she will commonly seek for an exit through a buyout of his/her shares. If this course of action cannot be implemented, it is not uncommon for the Court to order a winding up of the Company under section 233 of the Act.

对公司的清算

Winding up of the Company

《公司法》第461条规定，在下列情况下可作出要求公司清算的命令:

(a)董事在公司事务中为自己的利益行事，而不是为全体股东的利益行事，或以可能对其他股东不公平或不公正的方式行事;或

(b)公司的事务正在以压制、不公平地损害或不公平地歧视一名或多名股东的方式进行，或以违反全体股东利益的方式进行;或

(c)公司或代表公司作出的作为或不作为的行为，拟议作为或拟议不作为的行为，或者某一类公司股东的决议或拟议的决议，曾经或将会压制、不公平地损害、不公平地歧视一名或多名股东，或者曾经或将会违反全体股东的利益。

Under section 461 of the Act, an order seeking for the winding up of a Company may be made if:

(a) directors have acted in affairs of the company in their own interests rather than in the interests of the members as a whole, or in any other manner whatsoever that appears to be unfair or unjust to other members; or

(b) affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members or in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole; or

(c) an act or omission, or a proposed act or omission, by or on behalf of the company, or a resolution, or a proposed resolution, of a class of members of the company, was or would be oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members or was or would be contrary to the interests of the members as a whole.

鉴于（清算）这种救济措施的严重性，只有在法院认为这样做是公正和平等的情况下才会予以核准(见《公司法》第461(k)条)。在确定什么是公正和公平时，法院必须考虑到一系列复杂的情况，一般来说，法院必须认为，争议十分严重以至于除了注销该公司外，无法以其他方式解决。

Given the gravity of such a remedy, it will only be approved if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so (see section 461(k) of the Act). In determining what is just and equitable, the court is required to take into account a complex set of circumstances, but generally, the court must be of the opinion that the dispute is so serious that it is not capable of being resolved in any way other than by bringing the company’s existence to an end.

结论

Conclusion

针对公司董事的诉讼主要是在关系破裂(个人不满)和股东未能达成令人满意的决议或协议之后提起的。在这种情况下，特别是在压制性诉讼中，原告将通过买断其股份或公司清算的方式退出。考虑到这一点，大多数压制性案例实际上都是涉及以何种方式、何种价格让一个股东退出企业的估值案例。

Actions against the directors of the company are predominantly brought after a breakdown of relationships (a personal grievance) and a failure for the shareholders to come to a satisfactory resolution or agreement. In such circumstances, and particularly in proceedings for oppression, the complainant will seek for an exit either through a buyout of his or her shares or for the winding up of the company. Given so, most oppression cases are, in effect, valuation cases involving disputes about how, and for what price, one shareholder can exit the business.

在小型的私营企业中，股东通常会认为其所持股份的价值高于市场价格。在这种情况下，谨慎的做法是律师尽早要求进行独立估值。这种独立估值将使怀有不符合商业现实之期望的当事方认清现实，并有助于避免不必要和昂贵的诉讼。

In small private companies, it is common for shareholders to believe that the value of their shareholding is for more than what the market price is. In such circumstances, it may be prudent for the solicitor to request for an independent valuation to be taken early on. This independent valuation will shed the harsh light of reality upon parties with uncommercial expectations and aid towards the avoidance of unnecessary and costly litigation.

延伸

阅读

澳大利亚法律框架下的合同落空原则及不可抗力条款

自愿接管制度：接管人、债权人以及可能的后果

清算

清算及债权人

澳大利亚外国投资制度-对新政策的解读

澳大利亚的股东诉讼（上）

我们的团队

Our Team

无论您想在澳大利亚设立子公司还是收购澳大利亚公司股权或资产，文康-君益诚涉澳法律团队将为中国投资者提供最专业且全面的一站式服务。

通过与从事双边贸易和跨境投资的中澳跨国公司长期合作，我们拥有丰富的法律服务经验。

Whether you are seeking to establish a local Australian subsidiary or acquiring an interest in an Australian company or asset, Wincon – JYC Law Group’s Australia Legal Team provides an integrated end to end solution to Chinese investors.

Our experience comes from a history of working with Chinese and Australian multinationals engaged in bilateral trade and cross border investments.

-END-

专栏文章

显示更多

澳大利亚的股东诉讼（下）

澳大利亚的股东诉讼

Shareholder litigation in Australia

第二部分：压制性行为

Part 2: Oppressive Conduct

澳大利亚法律框架下的合同落空原则及不可抗力条款

澳大利亚外国投资制度-对新政策的解读

澳大利亚的股东诉讼（上）

专栏文章

家庭财富保护计划中使用全权信托有关的实务问题

专业解读“澳洲动产抵押权益登记署”

在澳大利亚购买房产：考虑因素和保护措施（下）

在澳大利亚购买房产：考虑因素和保护措施在澳大利亚购买房产：考虑因素和保护措施

遗产规划和财富保值计划的实际价值

澳大利亚公司的董事职务

董事职责与非法凤凰活动

澳大利亚的股东诉讼（下）