Disputes about corporate expression absorption and their legal remedies

Corporate expression is the expression that a company gives to the outside in its capacity as a legal entity. Often referring to resolutions made by shareholder meetings and the board of directors, based on good faith and bound by contractual spirit, a company must be held liable for its expression. Corporate expression absorption refers to the corporate behaviors and situations wherein the majority voting shareholders and directors replace the will of the minority voting shareholders and directors within their own will. Among them, the majority voting shareholders at a shareholders’ meeting (shareholders’ general meeting) are decision-making shareholders, and directors, managers and other senior management staff that decide corporate affairs are called decision-making members. Corporate expression absorption consists of two sorts: absorption by shareholders’ meeting and absorption by the board of directors. Shareholders’ meeting is a company’s authoritative organization; when the voting rights of some shareholders exceed the statutory limit, they will be able to manipulate the expression of shareholders’ meetings and replace the will of other shareholders with that of their own. The expression absorption by the board of directors refers to the practice wherein the majority directors decide on important corporate matters in accordance with the majority rule. Thus, it can be seen that the corporate expression absorption is a double-edged sword, not only capable of uplifting operational efficiency but also likely to help decision-making shareholders achieve personal gains and transfer corporate interests. As for the disputes of corporate expression absorption, the following legal remedies might be adopted: (1) Limit the voting rights of decision-making shareholders. (2) Provide shareholders with veto power over specific events. (3) Ask the chambers of commerce (industry associations) to arbitrate specific events. (4) Preserve the market value of shares held by dissenting directors. (5) Expand cumulative voting; (6) Provide shareholders the right to exit. (7) Legal remedies for corporate deadlock. (8) Shareholders’ derivative lawsuits. __________ Translated from China Law, No. 4, 2005     

New corporate agendas

Globalisation is changing the public affairs agenda for businesses operating in a more interdependent world. As the roles and responsibilities of government are being redefined, and the boundaries between business and government become less clear cut, today's business leaders are facing a daunting array of challenges. In the new age of corporate social responsibility, the needs of shareholders, consumers, employees, national as well as international regulators, watchdogs, NGOs and activist groups have to be satisfied. The number of variables that could affect the bottom line appears to be growing at an exponential rate; and losing the trust of stakeholders can be fatal. Business leaders should step up to the challenges that these developments are creating. They should be unapologetic about countering anti‐globalisation activists by demonstrating the real value that business can bring to the developing as well as the developed world. They should help to promote the virtues of greater transparency and accountability to their stakeholders. They should be actively engaged in fashioning new regulatory architecture that is pro‐competitive, one that makes trade possible. Business leaders should support efforts to develop better quality regulation of the increasing number of trans‐national issues that call for co‐ordinated, international responses. Ignoring or down‐playing these challenges carries a price: it plays into the hands of cyber cohorts and single issue groups, that are accountable to none but themselves, and leads to weaker public policy outcomes. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications     

修改公司法，放宽公司的担保能力

基于美国等市场经济国家的立法经验,我国新《公司法》应当对公司为其股东设保采取更加宽松、灵活的态度,更好地实现公司利益、被担保股东利益、未被担保的股东利益和债权人利益的平衡与协调,并明确公司违反法律、行政法规或者公司章程中的例外条款提供担保的法律效果。     

公司“法人格”否认制度探微

现代公司独立人格制度产生和发展有其特殊的历史和逻辑依据。目前,我国公司独立人格制度出现异化现象,建立公司"法人格"否认制度确有必要,而公司"法人格"否认制度的法律条文零散,法律适用范围尚不宽泛。因此,应更新法条法理,提高公司"法人格"否认制度的认可度;构建诚信体系,维护公司"法人格"否认制度的合法诉求;提高司法素养,提升公司"法人格"否认制度的挈领价值。     

“公司利他权”之践行机制

要想真正使公司董事等高管积极实施＂利他权＂,在我国不仅要树立和普及＂公司利他权＂之＂价值理念＂;在《公司法》方面还应明确规定＂公司利他权＂及＂其他利害关系人条款＂、＂抽象性目的条款＂、＂一般权利和具体权利＂,更应明确规定董事等公司高管之＂商业判断规则＂;再者,还应不断完善相关＂公司利他权＂方面之其他配套法律、法规,完善司法制度和行政制度及行为,并辅之以其他社会保障制度。     

发挥工会工作优势 助推企业文化建设——以国有企业工会工作促进企业文化建设的探讨

国有企业的工会组织作为紧密联系企业和职工的桥梁和纽带,在企业文化建设中具有先天优势和独特作用.针对当前国企企业文化建设的特点,把充分发挥企业工会工作优势和企业文化建设进行有机结合,以企业工会工作促进企业文化建设,为现代企业文化建设提供新的思路.     

债权人参与公司治理的必要性及可行性分析

债权人作为公司利益相关者参与公司治理结构设置,这已经是近年来强烈呼吁的形势所在。以公司治理中的利益相关者理论,通过实证分析方法和比较分析方法讨论,在我国,债权人参与公司治理既有其必要性,也有其可行性。同时,域外现行公司治理机制中债权人参与模式为我国将来的借鉴提供了参考依据。     

公司社会责任制度的立法现状与完善

我国公司社会责任的立法与西方国家相比起步较晚,即缺乏强制性,又没有一整套具体可行的制度安排。今后应从建立企业社会责任会计核算制度、健全社会责任信息披露机制、明确公司承担社会责任的激励和约束机制、优化公司法人治理结构、制订与国际接轨的社会责任标准体系等几方面加以完善。     

浅论企业经营管理中的有效沟通问题

管理过程就是信息的传递与反馈过程，有效沟通的管理模式有几方面：提升信息传递质量。提高自身沟通技能是改善组织沟通的根本途径，学会倾听，注重非言语技巧，根据听众调整信息。充分利用非正式沟通，建立长期公开渠道。进行沟通制度改革，建立常用沟通形式，经常召开员工会议，企业内必须建立一套有效的建议制度，保证强行向上沟通，以提高工作效率和机构效能。     

公司契约理论对公司法的解读

公司契约理论为我们认识公司法和一系列公司制度提供了新的视角。以公司契约理论来解读我国公司法律制度,我们可知,我国公司法应属于私法,以授权性、任意性规范为主;公司治理的理论基础应该是契约自由;作为对契约"缝隙"的弥补,司法对公司运作应是有限介入。