法学院知识库

    对赌协议作为私募股权领域的新型工具。从产生之初一直游走于我国法律的灰色地带。投融资双方明知对赌协议在我国存在法律适用困境，仍然乐此不疲地签订对赌协议，甚至对赌协议在私募股权领域已经常态化。本文分析，其主要原因在于交易双方对目标企业估值难以达成合意、双方信息的不对称、委托代理成本。这些具有创新精神的企业家们通过博弈选择签订对赌协议以实现自己的利益最大化。

    本文以上述对赌协议的发展背景及其理论基础为支撑，围绕以下内容展开本文论述。首先，对如何识别界定对赌协议的法律性质，笔者通过分析现有关于对赌协议法律性质的学说观点的不足之处，以解决对赌协议的法律适用问题出发，最终落脚在对赌协议的法律适用为思考路径，指出应将对赌协议通过立法有名化，规定为典型合同类型，只有这样才能对对赌协议进行准确的法律规制。其次，本文从审判机关的裁判案例出发，分析对赌协议效力认定的分歧。通过对案例的分析、归纳、梳理大致厘清审判机关在审理此类案件的逻辑进程和裁判标准。再次，关于对赌协议的履行，本文分析了回购请求权行使以及现金补偿权行使在我国公司法下的可操作性、合理性等问题。最后，在上述研究的基础上，从立法上指出我国《公司法》存在的制度供给不足的问题，提出建立股份回购财源限制、确立优先股的合法地位、完善投资方退出渠道的立法建议。从司法角度，在现有的法律框架下，提出了兼顾资本维持原则的对赌协议效力认定和目标公司承担担保行为效力的认定操作方案以及对赌协议利润分配的实现途径的完善建议。从证监会监管角度，针对证监会关于对赌协议的监管问题，指出证监会可以从以下三个方面完善对赌协议的监管：规范对赌协议的信息披露、禁止上市公司溢价回购、限制股权比例调整范围。

Gambling agreement as a new tool of private equity.From its inception, it has been wandering in the gray area of Chinese law.Both sides of investment and financing know that the gambling agreement has legal application difficulties in China, but they are still happy to sign the gambling agreement, and even the gambling agreement has become normal in the field of private equity investment.According to the analysis of the author, the main reasons are that the two sides of the transaction are difficult to reach an agreement on the valuation of the target enterprise, the information asymmetry between the two sides and the principal-agent cost.These innovative entrepreneurs choose to sign the gambling agreement to maximize their own interests.

Based on the development background and theoretical basis of the above gambling agreement, this paper discusses the following contents.Firstly, on how to identify defines the legal nature of bet against the agreement, the author analyzes the existing agreement on bet against the deficiency of theory of the nature of law, in order to solve the problem, the application of law to bet against the agreement finally locate in the application of law to bet against the agreement for thinking path, points out that bet against the agreement should be known through legislation, regulation for typical contract type, only in this way can accurately to bet against agreement law regulation.Secondly, this paper analyzes the differences in the determination of the validity of the gambling agreement from the judgment cases of the judicial organs.Through the case analysis, induction, sorting out roughly to clarify the logical process and adjudication standards of the judicial organs in hearing such cases.Thirdly, as for the performance of the gambling agreement, this paper analyzes the maneuverability and rationality of the exercise of the buyback claim right and the exercise of the cash compensation right under the Company Law of China.Finally, on the basis of the above research, this paper points out the problem of insufficient system supply in the Company Law of our country from the legislative perspective, and puts forward some legislative suggestions on establishing the financial restriction of share repurchase, establishing the legal status of preferred stock, and improving the exit channels of investors.From the judicial point of view, under the existing legal framework, this paper puts forward the operational scheme of verifying the validity of the gambling agreement and the guarantee behavior of the target company considering the principle of capital maintenance, and puts forward some suggestions on how to realize the profit distribution of the gambling agreement.From the perspective of supervision of China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), this paper points out that the CSRC can improve the supervision of the gambling agreement from the following three aspects: standardizing the information disclosure of the gambling agreement, forbidding the listed company to repurchase at a premium, and limiting the scope of equity ratio adjustment.