英文案例選讀:公司法人人格獨立

為了更好方便大家接觸英語和法律英語，超律志通過推薦境外案例帶大家學習。《英文案例選讀》系列撰稿人Alicia以公司法相關境外案例為學習材料著手，該系列具體包括三個部分：【Facts Material】、【Glossary】、【Holding of the Judges】。

 

如果喜歡，記得文末點擊「在看」支持超律志，並且不要錯過學習，一定要標星本公眾號哦。

公眾號後臺回復關鍵詞「公司法人」，可獲取本案例全文學習。

一、Facts Material

 

 

Aron Salomon, for many years carried on business, on his own account, as a leather merchant and wholesale boot manufacturer. With the design of transferring his business to a joint stock company, Salomon formed and registered the company, under the name of " Aron Salomon and Company, Limited," with liability limited by shares, and having a nominal capital of 40,000£ divided into 40,000 shares of 1£ each. Salomon, his wife, a daughter, and four sons, each of them subscribed for one share. At the same time, Salomon was also appointed managing director.

多年以來，Aron Salomon作為一名成功的皮革製造批發商，生意經營得紅紅火火。懷著將生意轉到有限公司且讓家人都參與經營的美好初衷，Salomon以「 Aron Salomon and Company，Limited」的名義成立並註冊了一家股份有限責任公司，註冊資本為40,000英鎊，每股1英鎊。Salomon，他的妻子，一個女兒和四個兒子，每個人認購一股。同時，Salomon被任命為公司經理。

In addition, 100 debentures, for 100£ each, were issued to the appellant, who, upon the security of these documents, obtained an advance of 5000£ from Edmund Broderip. And then original debentures were returned to the company and cancelled; and in lieu thereof, with the consent of the appellant as beneficial owner, fresh debentures to the same amount were issued to Mr. Broderip, in order to secure the repayment of his loan, with interest at 8 per cent. The appellant also applied for and obtained an allotment of 20,000 shares from Salomon Co..

此外，Salomon向自己發行了100份債券，每份100英鎊。在前述債權擔保下，Salomon從Edmund Broderip那裡獲得了5000英鎊。然後，原始債券被退還給公司並取消。作為替代，Salomon作為債券實際受益人同意，向Broderip發行了相同數額的新債券，以確保償還其貸款，利息為8％。Salomon還向Salomon Co.申請並獲得了20,000股的配股。

Default having been made in the payment of interest upon his debentures, Mr. Broderip instituted an action in order to enforce his security against the assets of the company. Thereafter a liquidation order was made, and a liquidator appointed, at the instance of unsecured creditors ofthe company. It has now been ascertained that, if the amount realised from the assets of the company were, in the first place, applied in extinction of Mr. Broderip's debt and interest, there would remain a balance of about 1055£, which is claimed by the appellant as beneficial owner of the debentures. event of his claim being sustained there will be no funds left for payment of the unsecured creditors, whose debts amount to around 7733£.

誰能料想到時態不佳，生意慘澹。Broderip便提出訴訟，以Salomon Co.的公司資產要求實現擔保，讓Salomon償還貸款本息。隨後，無擔保的債權人也要求公司清算。然而，公司資產變現的金額如首先用於償還Broderip的貸款本息，大約1055英鎊的餘額全部由Salomon作為債券實際受益人次優先於無擔保債權人受償，那麼無擔保債權人的債務（約7733英鎊）將無法得到任何受償。

 

二、Glossary

Allegation：n. （尤指未經證實的）陳述、說法；斷言；宣稱；指控

Appellant：n. 上訴人

Creditor：n. 債權人；賒帳者；會計貸方

Cross Appeal：n. 交相上訴

Cross Examination：n. 交叉盤問

Debenture：n. 借據；債券；（海關）退稅憑單

Dismiss：n. 解散，遣散；解僱，辭退，開除；放棄（企圖等），消除（顧慮等）；草率對待；駁回，拒絕受理 // vi.解散

Indemnify：vt. 保護，保障；補償，賠償

Lien：n. 留置權；扣押權

Limited Liability：n. 有限責任

Liquidator：n. 公司資產清算人

Trustee：n. 受託人；董事；理事

 

三、Holding of the Judges

It is not contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Companies Act 1862 for a trader, in order to limit his liability and obtain ,the preference of a debenture-holder over other creditors, to sell his business to a limited company consisting only of himself and six members of his own family, the business being then solvent, all the terms of sale being known to and approved by the shareholders, and all the requirements of the Act being complied with.

經營者為了限制其責任並持有優先於其他債權人的債券而將其生意轉售給僅由自己及其六個家庭成員組成的有限公司的行為並不違背1862年《公司法》的真實意圖。即便生意破產了，所有股東也均已知悉並批准了全部銷售條款，遵守了《公司法》的所有規定。

Judges of House of Lords held that the proceedings were not contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Companies Act 1862 ; that the company was duly formed and registered and was not the mere "alias" or agent of or trustee for the vendor; that he was not liable to indemnify the company against the creditors' claims; that there was no fraud upon creditors or shareholders; and that the company (or the liquidator suing in the name of the company) was not entitled to rescission of the contract for purchase.

（前情提要：初審法院及上訴法院認為Salomon Co.就是Salomon的「化名」或代理人或受託人。）英國上議院法官經審判卻認為：（1）Salomon的一系列行為沒有違反1862年《公司法》的真實意圖和含義；（2）Salomon Co.是正式組建和註冊的，而不僅僅是Salomon的「化名」或代理人或受託人；（3）Salomon沒有責任應債權人的要求向公司賠償；（4）Salomon對債權人或其他股東沒有欺詐行為；（5）Salomon Co.（或以Salomon Co.名義提起訴訟的清算人）無權撤銷債券認購協議。

 

作為公司法上最重要的案例之一，Salomon v Salomon & Co.一判例確立了以下原則：即使公司的控制權僅操縱於一位或少數股東手中，只要依照法律規定設立有限公司，該公司便依法取得獨立人格：公司的財產獨立，股東僅以其出資額承擔有限責任。然而正因如此，該判例也為個別股東或少數股東牟取法外利益、損害公司的債權人合法權益提供了機會。為矯治公司獨立法人人格（seperate legal personality of a company）的濫用，「刺破公司面紗」（piercing the corporate veil）原則便誕生於世。

 

For more: original judgement; follow our subscription and get it

公眾號後臺回復關鍵詞「公司法人」，可獲取本案例全文學習。

點擊右下角「在看」，分享給更多小夥伴

您的支持， 是超律志持續更新的動力