摘要
在私募股权投资领域,目标公司在对赌协议中提供担保的交易模式逐渐成为主流模式,但在实践中对其是否有效存在争议,长期没有定论。对赌条款的效力与参与对赌的主体息息相关,与公司对赌因违反资本维持原则、违背共享收益、共担风险的基本法理而无效,与股东对赌不会因股东这一特殊主体而无效。与股东对赌的同时由公司承担保证责任不属于实质上与公司对赌而无效,而是形成了与对赌密切联系却又有区别的担保法律关系。担保条款符合我国《公司法》第16条第二款的规定即为有效,目标公司就须承担担保责任。
In the field of private equity investment,the transaction model in which the target company provides guarantee in the VAM(Valuation Adjustment Mechanism)gradually becomes the mainstream model,but in practice,there is a dispute over whether it is effective or not,and there is no final conclusion for a long time.The validity of the counter bet clause is closely related to the main body participating in the counter bet.The counter bet with the company is invalid because of the violation of the capital maintenance principle,the basic legal principles of sharing profits and common risks,and the counter bet with the shareholders will not be invalid due to the special subject of shareholders.While vesting with the shareholders,the guarantee liability undertaken by the company does not belong to the vesting against the company in essence and is invalid.The guarantee shall be valid if it conforms to Article 16,Paragraph 2 of the Company Law,and the target company shall assume the guarantee liability.
作者
郑玉亭
Zheng Yuting(Law School,Central University of Finance and Economics,Beijing 100081,China)
出处
《无锡商业职业技术学院学报》
2020年第1期38-43,共6页
Journal of Wuxi Vocational Institute of Commerce
关键词
对赌协议
资本维持原则
公司担保
Valuation Adjustment Mechanism
principle of capital maintenance
company guarantee
