|
资讯 观点 案例 律途 荐读  作为控股型公司（或称母公司），其特点是公司业务主要由下属企业具体经营，公司主要负责对下属企业的控制与管理，公司利润主要来源于对下属企业的投资所得。控股型公司管理穿透法律风险是指，由于母公司与下属企业在内控制度管理、内部决策机制等方面的权利义务界限不清，导致在下属企业涉及争议纠纷时，外部第三方通过“揭开公司面纱”等方式追究母公司的法律责任；以及因母公司或下属企业违反监管规定或其他义务，导致相关监管部门、司法机关或外部第三方要求母公司承担法律责任。 笔者结合常年服务控股型上市公司及央企集团的经验，在本文主要分析以下两类管理穿透风险： （1）母公司对下属企业的管控，是基于其作为控股股东、实控人、受托管理人、参股股东等身份。该等模式下，可能因其自身管理决策不当、上下级管理边界不清、各不同法律实体之间权利义务关系不明而引发相关风险； （2）母公司如涉足重监管行业或涉及上市公司，则可能导致公司对下属运营实体行使管控职能时，受监管部门或司法机关追责而引发相关风险。 法律风险分析 笔者以某国有控股型公司为例，该公司投资行业包括医疗、房地产、金融等，旗下上市公司若干，以该公司主体资格、所在监管领域及行业为划分标准，初步梳理了风险点（见表格）。
笔者认为，除表中所列情形之外，还应特别重视公司章程及内部管理制度、相关协议安排可能涉及的管理穿透风险。比如，在公司章程及内部管理制度中约定的控股股东、实控人是否会严重影响下属企业的法人独立性原则（如财产、人员或机构混同，大股东资金占用等）？在经营管理方面是否存在事实上的资质挂靠、借用等违法违规行为？这些均有可能导致被相关监管部门、司法机关或外部第三方要求控股公司承担法律责任的风险。 风险应对 控股型公司管理穿透风险涉及情形复杂、监管领域及行业众多；且具有双向性，一旦出险，母公司与下属企业均可能因对方或双方的违法违规或违约行为导致不利的法律责任或后果。鉴于此，笔者有如下应对建议： 第一，通过外聘律师从下属企业法律性质、所处监管领域及所在行业监管要求等方面，对公司可能涉及的风险进行梳理、识别，并对该等风险予以定量分析。 第二，针对风险的成因、等级及发生频次，有针对性地制定风险应对策略和措施，包括：依法建立公司内控管理制度与决策审批机制，确保通过股东会、董事会、派驻高管及监事等形式依规参与下属企业的经营管理与决策，严格遵守所在领域及行业的相关监管规定与要求。 第三，对公司风险予以信息化、常态化管理，如形成风险梳理成果文件并导入公司OA系统，按年度及时更新、完善，建立健全风险管控的长效机制及常态化管理。（原文刊载于《商法》杂志2019年第7期。） ‘Piercing the veil’ and the risks for holding companies As a holding company (or parent company), its business is mainly operated by its subordinate enterprises. The company is mainly responsible for the control and management of its subordinate enterprises and its profits mainly come from its investment in them. The management penetration risk faced by holding companies refers to the fact that, due to the unclear boundaries of rights and obligations between the parent company and the subordinate enterprise in internal control system management and an internal decision-making mechanism, when the subordinate enterprise is involved in disputes, the external third parties investigate the legal liability of the parent company by “piercing the corporate veil” and also other means. Because the parent company or its subordinate enterprise violates regulatory requirements or other obligations, relevant regulatory authorities, judicial departments or external third parties require the parent company to assume legal liability. This article mainly analyses the following two types of management penetration risks. (1) The parent company’s control over its subordinate enterprises is based on its status as controlling shareholder, actual controller, trustee and participating shareholder. Under these modes, risks may arise because of improper management decisions, unclear management boundaries between superiors and subordinates, and unclear rights and obligations among different legal entities. (2) If the parent company is involved in the heavily regulated industry, or if listed companies are involved, risks may arise due to investigation by the supervisory departments or judicial departments when the company exercises the supervisory and control functions over the subordinate operating entity. Analysis of legal risks The author takes a state-owned holding company with investments covering healthcare, real estate, finance, etc., and to which several listed companies are subordinated, as an example to preliminarily sort out the risk points based on the company’s qualifications, regulatory areas and industries (see table).
The author believes that, in addition to the situations listed in the table, special attention should be paid to the management penetration risks that may be involved in the articles of association, internal management system and relevant agreements or arrangements. For example, will the controlling shareholders and actual controllers stipulated in the articles of association and internal management system seriously affect the principle of corporate independence of subordinate enterprises (such as the confusion of property, personnel or body, and fund occupation by large shareholders, etc.)? Are there any illegal and irregular activities in operation and management, such as de facto qualification affiliation and borrowing? All these may lead to the risk of holding companies being required by the relevant regulatory authorities, judicial departments or external third parties to bear legal liability. Response to risk The controlling company’s management penetration risk involves complex situations, numerous regulatory areas and industries, and is bi-directional. Once risks occur, both the parent company and the subordinate enterprises may cause unfavourable legal responsibilities or consequences due to violations or breach of contract by the other party, or both parties. In view of this, the author has the following suggestions. First, engage lawyers to sort out and identify the risks that may involve the company, and quantitatively analyze the risks of a legal nature of the subordinate enterprises, the regulatory areas in which they are located, and the regulatory requirements of the industry. Second, in view of the causes, levels and frequency of risks, formulate risk response strategies and measures accordingly, including, but not limited to, establishing an internal control management system and decision-making approval mechanism in accordance with the law, ensuring participation in the management and decision-making of subordinate enterprises in accordance with regulations in the form of shareholders’ meeting, board of directors, and appointing of senior management and supervisors, and strictly abiding by relevant regulatory provisions and requirements in their areas and industries. Third, the company should carry out informationized and normalized risk management, such as forming a document of risk, sorting it and importing it into a corporate office administration system, and timely updating and improving it on an annual basis, establishing and improving a long-term mechanism of risk control and regular management. (Original source: CBLJ Issue 7, 2019.) 胡晓华 天达共和合伙人 北京办公室 Cindyhu@east-concord.com 8610 6510 7012  胡晓华律师为本所医药及医疗健康业务团队负责人，主要业务领域为公司投融资、并购重组。胡律师拥有丰富的国有企事业单位改制重组、投资并购经验，且多年深耕医药、医疗领域法律服务，具有深厚的医药医疗行业背景。胡律师曾作为司法部与英国的青年律师合作项目选拔的优秀青年律师，赴英国伦敦大学进修英国法律，并作为客座律师在英国司力达律师事务所伦敦总部及香港分所学习公司融资方面的律师实务。胡律师曾获得过北京市优秀律师、朝阳区首届优秀女律师等殊荣，并多次被《亚洲法律评论》（Asialaw Profiles）评为公司并购及重组领域亚洲领先律师。  |
|
|
