澳大利亚的股东诉讼
Shareholder litigation in Australia
君益诚
前言
君益诚处理过一定的涉澳业务，在此基础上成立了澳洲业务团队，团队成员包括能以英语为工作语言的中国律师和外部合作的澳大利亚注册律师，其中王欲弘律师在中澳法律、投资、贸易、移民等业务领域深耕多年。外部合作的国际顾问祝福律师拥有澳洲律师牌照近十年，作为在澳大利亚长大的华人，熟悉中澳两国文化，处理了大量中澳跨境法律事务，经验丰富。
澳洲业务团队可为客户提供与中国-澳大利亚有关的投资、贸易、移民、跨国婚姻、诉讼等全方位、一站式的商业和法律服务。
澳大利亚的股东诉讼
Shareholder litigation in Australia
第一部分 法律框架
Legal Framework
本周的文章将探讨在澳大利亚法律框架下股东可采取的救济途径。有关董事职责及董事欺诈构成要件的更多信息，请参阅我们的文章《董事欺诈：法律后果与司法救济》。
This week’s article will examine recourses available to Shareholders under the Australian legal framework. For more information on director duties and what constitutes director fraud, please see our article titled Directors fraud: consequences and remedies.
本文将分为两部分。第一部分将介绍规管股东、董事及公司权利的章程，以及股东对董事提起诉讼的能力。
This article will be presented in two parts. The part one will introduce the constituent agreements governing the rights of shareholders/members, directors and the company, and the ability of shareholders to bring an action against the directors.
第二部分将向读者介绍股东反对董事压制行为的权利和现有的救济措施。
Part two will seek to inform readers as to Shareholder’s rights against oppressive actions of directors and remedies available.
一、公司章程和股东协议
Company Constitution and Shareholder Agreements
1．章程
Constitution
根据澳大利亚公司法，董事的权力是通过公司章程授予他们的，董事必须为适当的目的行使这些权力，不得越权或滥用权力。章程既规定了股东的权利，亦对股东的权利作出了规制。
Under Australian corporate law, the director’s powers are conferred to them via the company’s constitution, the directors must exercise these powers for proper purposes and not to exceed or abuse these powers. The constitution also governs the rights of shareholders/members whilst stipulating their rights.
公司章程受2001年《公司法》（下称“法案”、“《公司法》”）规定的管理和控制。该法案还规定了公司管理结构的形成，包括董事的任命、权力、召开董事会的程序等。一般来说，修改章程需要75%（及以上）有股东大会投票权的股东通过特别决议。
The Company constitution is governed and controlled by the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Act also lays down the provisions for formation of management structure of the company including the appointment of directors, their powers, procedures for conducting board meetings and so on. Ordinarily, any amendments to the constitution would require a Special resolution of 75% of Members that are entitled to vote at a general meeting.
从本质上讲，公司章程是处理公司内部管理的具有约束力的合同。该合同由下列双方订立，对双方均有约束力：
• 公司和每位股东；
• 公司和每位董事及秘书；以及
• 每个股东之间。
Essentially, the company’s constitution is a binding contract which deals with the internal management of the company. This contract is entered between and binding upon:
• the company and each member,
• the company and every director and secretary, and
• between each member and every other member.
章程还包括有关董事会权力的规定，修改章程通常需要75%（及以上）有股东大会投票权的股东通过特别决议。
The constitution will also contain provisions governing the powers of the board of directors, with any amendments to the constitution ordinarily requiring a Special resolution of 75% of Members that are entitled to vote at a general meeting.
2. 股东协议
Shareholder Agreements
另一方面，股东协议是协议签署者之间的私人合同，因此，可以通过签署者之间的协议进行修改。一般来说，股东协议是公司董事和股东之间的合约。
Shareholder agreements on the other hand are private contracts between the signatories of the agreement, as such, can be amended by agreement between each of the signatories. Commonly, the shareholder agreement is a contract between the directors of the company and the signatory members.
虽然公司章程对公司治理作出了广泛的规定，但股东协议是根据公司的特定目的而制定的，要考虑到公司的业务性质和股东的特定期许。
Whilst the company’s constitution will set out the broad provisions relating to the governance of the company, the Shareholders’ Agreement is tailored to the particular purposes of the company, taking into account the nature of its business and the particular wishes of its shareholders.
这两份文件应相互配合，并需要仔细起草，以确保它们不会相互冲突，不会在以明确（股东权利）为目标的情况下，反而增加了相关不确定性。
The two documents should work in conjunction with each other and need to be carefully drafted to ensure they do not conflict or add uncertainty in circumstances where certainty is the objective.
二、争议
Disputes
通常，公司章程是解决此类争端的起点。如果无公司章程，则公司的管理将由《公司法》的可替代规则来制定。
Often, the company’s constitution will act as a starting point to resolve such disputes. If the company’s constitution is not present, then the Act’s replaceable rules will formulate the management of the company.
一般来说，董事只对公司负有信义义务，而非任何特定的股东。《公司法》第181（1）条规定了这一信义义务，要求董事“本着诚信和公司的最大利益”行事。
Generally, a director owes a fiduciary duty to the company only, and not to any particular shareholder. This fiduciary duty is expressed in section 181(1) of the Act requiring directors to act 'in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation'.
因此，一旦发生争议，根据争议各方的情况，需要对这两份文件进行仔细审查。文件未规定解决争议的方式，不能达成协议的，股东可以向法院提起诉讼。
Consequently, once a dispute arises, and depending on the parties to the dispute, a close examination of both documents is required. If the documents do not specify the manner through which disputes are to be settled, and an agreement cannot be reached, the shareholder may take recourse through the courts.
1. 股东间的争议
Between Shareholders
如果公司的股东之间有争议，通常第一步是审查股东协议，以检查是否有争议的解决方式。股东协议通常规定了在股东之间发生争议时要求股东遵循的程序。
If there is a dispute amongst shareholders of a company, normally the first step is to review your Shareholders Agreement to check whether there is a method of resolving the dispute. It is common for shareholder agreements to set out the procedure shareholders are required to follow in the event of a dispute between shareholders.
如果没有股东协议，应该检查章程中是否有条款可以帮助或指导如何解决争议或帮助确定各方的义务。
If there is no Shareholders Agreement, you should check to see whether the constitution contains any provisions which may assist or provide guidance as to how to resolve the dispute or help define the parties’ obligations.
如果不存在这种条款，根据《公司法》等法律，可能有衡平法上的诉讼和救济途径。
If not, there may be legal causes of actions and remedies available to you in Equity, under the Act or some other legislation.
2. 股东和董事之间的争议
Between Shareholders and Directors
我们强调，公司董事对公司负有信义义务，而非对特定股东负有信义义务。但是，当董事违反了他们的信义义务，或者当他们的行为方式为压制性的时，（股东）可以使用法律手段。
We emphasise that the company’s directors owe a fiduciary duty to the Company and not to a particular shareholder. However, legal recourse is available when either the directors have breached their fiduciary duty or if they have acted in a manner which is oppressive.
3. 以股东个人身份提起的诉讼
Actions in a Shareholder’s personal capacity
根据澳大利亚的法律框架，股东可以以个人身份提起诉讼，行使其权利（的情况）主要包括：
• 为不正当目的而进行公司股权分配；或
• 公司行使修改章程的权力，损害了股东或股东的权利。
Under the Australian legal framework, shareholders are able to bring an action in their personal capacity to enforce their rights and predominantly include:
• Allotment of Shares in the company for an improper purpose; or
• Where a company exercises its power to alter the constitution in a manner which harms the shareholders or their rights.
4. 以公司名义提起的诉讼
Actions on behalf of the company
如前所述，董事对公司负有义务，因此，英国法律首先要求公司是适格原告。这条规则起源于1843年的Foss诉Harbottle案，但逐年来确立了很多例外情况。通常而言，这些被称为派生诉讼的例外情况很难得以确认。
As previously stated, a director owes his duty to the company, as such, English law primarily required the company to be the plaintiff. This rule, which stems from Foss v Harbottle in 1843, has had a number of exceptions developed over the years. These exceptions, known as derivative actions, were notoriously difficult to establish.
在澳大利亚，普通法上提起派生诉讼的权利已被一项法定权利所取代，《公司法》第2F. 1A部分（第236至242条）规定了其必要的程序。
In Australia, the right to bring derivative actions at general law has been replaced by a statutory right, with the required procedures set out in Part 2F.1A (sections 236 to 242) of the Act.
如要进行派生诉讼，第2F. 1A部分要求股东首先获得法院许可，且存在违反董事义务、不遵守章程的情况，或者是针对公司不起诉的第三人而提起诉讼的情况。
For derivative actions to be commenced, Part 2F. 1A requires shareholders to firstly obtain the approval of the court and are available for breaches of director duties or the constitution, or against a third party where the company would not do so.
根据第237条的规定，如法院认为符合下列条件，便须准予申请：
• 公司本身可能不会提起诉讼，或不对诉讼或诉讼中的步骤承担适当责任；和
• 申请人为善意行事；和
• 申请人获准法院许可符合公司的最大利益；和
• 如果申请人申请法院许可是为了提起诉讼，则这一严重问题需要审慎处理。
Under the section 237, the court must grant the application if it is satisfied that:
• it is probable that the company will not itself bring the proceedings, or properly take responsibility for them, or for the steps in them; and
• the applicant is acting in good faith; and
• it is in the best interests of the company that the applicant be granted leave; and
• if the applicant is applying for leave to bring proceedings - there is a serious question to be tried.
如果是针对第三方的诉讼，则第237（3）条规定了一个反驳的理由，即如果公司根据其董事的决议，决定不提起诉讼，或（为他人对公司提起的诉讼）进行辩护，或终止诉讼，则只要董事的行为符合商业判断原则，董事就不为此承担责任。
If the proceedings are against a third party, section 237(3) then sets out a rebuttable presumption which is established if the company, by a decision of its directors, has decided not to bring the proceedings or not to defend them or to discontinue them, through the application of the Business Judgment Rule.
第二部分 压制性行为
Oppressive Conduct
针对压制性行为的诉讼通常发生在公司董事以某种程度压制某一股东或某一类股东的权利时。
Actions for oppressive conduct are commonly brought in circumstances where the director/s of a company has acted in a manner which oppresses the rights of a shareholder, or a class of shareholders.
根据2001年《公司法》第232条，在下列情况下，法院可作出命令：
• 处理公司事务；或
• 公司或其代表的实际或拟议的作为或不作为；或
• 公司某些或某类股东的决议或拟议决议；
要么：
• 违反全体股东的利益；或
• 以该身份或其他身份压迫、不公平地损害或不公平地歧视一名或多名股东。
Under Section 232 of the Act 2001 (Cth) the court may make an order if:
• the conduct of a company's affairs; or
• an actual or proposed act or omission by or on behalf of a company; or
• a resolution, or a proposed resolution, of members or a class of members of a company;
is either:
• contrary to the interests of the members as a whole; or
• oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members whether in that capacity or in any other capacity.
压制性行为的例子包括：
• 对特定股东的利润分配不公；
• 拒绝披露信息；
• 公司资金使用不当；
• 向公司管理层支付过高薪酬；
• 不召开股东会或董事会，或不允许小股东参会；
• 签订对某一特定股东有利的贷款协议；
• 进行有争议的合并，且协议条款包括稀释现有股份（的内容）；
• 将一家私营企业的某一股东排除在管理层之外的不当行为，导致该股东无法出售其股份。（尤其在通常由股东担任董事的私营/小型公司中。在这类公司里，法院认可某些董事之间的密切关系可能会导致对被排斥股东的压制性行为。）
Examples of oppressive conduct include:
• Unfair allocation of dividends to particular shareholders;
• Refusing access to information;
• Improper use of company funds;
• Paying excessive remuneration to the person having control of the company;
• not calling shareholder or director meetings or not allowing minority shareholders to participate in meetings;
• Entering into loan agreements with terms beneficial to a certain shareholder;
• Entering controversial mergers with terms including the dilution of existing shares;
• The improper exclusion of a shareholder in a private company from management which results in the shareholder not being able to sell his/her shares. (This is particular to private/small companies where shareholders are commonly directors. In such companies, the Courts recognise the intimate relationships between certain directors which could result in oppression of an ostrcised shareholder.)
一、压制性行为的成立
Establishing Oppression
根据《公司法》第233条，原告必须证明压制性行为成立，法院才能做出裁定。涉诉行为必须与公司的事务有关，且有别于个人不满。此类行为包括公司的（人员）晋升、成立、股东资格、控制、业务、贸易、转账和交易、财产、负债、利润及其他收入、进款、亏损、支出和费用，以及内部管理和程序。
For an order to be made under section 233 of the Act, the complainant must be able to establish oppression. The conduct complained of must be in relation to the affairs of the company and distinct from a personal grievance. Such conduct will include the promotion, formation, membership, control, business, trading, transactions and dealings, property, liabilities, profits and other income, receipts, losses, outgoings and expenditure, and internal management and proceedings of the company.
董事的压制性行为在法律上的证明难度较高，所提出的证据必须使法院相信，这种行为有违诚信和公平，并且是性质严重错误的。然而，这种行为不必然要求是违法行为。
Oppressive acts of directors are not easily established, the evidence produced must satisfy the court that the act lacks probity and fair dealing and is burdensome, harsh and wrongful. However, the act need not be illegal.
因此，在确定什么是压迫或不公平时，法院将考虑多数股东和少数股东的利益，确认公司的情况和股东的合理预期。
Therefore, when determining what is oppressive or unfair, the Courts will look to the interests of the majority and minority shareholders and identify the company’s background and the reasonable expectations of its shareholders.
在股东目前不能证明压制性行为成立的情况下，对股东而言，建议最好开始收集证据，并详细记录发生的不当行为，以便作为起诉理由。可以查看公司的账目，或要求提供与公司事务相关的信息。这种个人不满升级为压制性行为的情况并不少见。在小型私营企业中尤其普遍。
In circumstances where the shareholder is not currently able to establish oppression, it may be good advice for the shareholder to begin the collection of evidence and to record in detail any improper conduct in anticipation of a cause of action arising. This could be to keep track of the company’s accounts, or to request information in relation to the company’s affairs. It is not uncommon for such personal grievances to escalade into oppressive acts. This is particularly prevalent in small private companies.
二、救济途径
Remedies
如果法院认为所诉的行为是压制性的，《公司法》第233条赋予法院广泛的权力以作出适当的命令，其中包括：
• 公司清算；
• 公司现有章程被修改或废止；
• 对与公司未来事务相关的行为进行监管；
• 公司股东或个人购买因遗嘱或法律运行而需由其购买的公司股份；
• 以适当减少公司股本的方式购买股份；
• 公司起诉、抗辩或中止特定程序；
• 授权因遗嘱或法律运行受让公司股份的股东或个人，以公司的名义并代表公司起诉、抗辩或中止特定的诉讼程序；
• 限制某人介入或作出特定行为；
• 要求某人作出特定行为。
If the court has found that the act complained of is oppressive, section 233 of the Act gives the Court broad powers to make appropriate orders which includes orders for:
• the company be wound up;
• the company's existing constitution be modified or repealed;
• the regulation of the conduct of the company's affairs in the future;
• the purchase of any shares by any member or person to whom a share in the company has been transmitted by will or by operation of law;
• the purchase of shares with an appropriate reduction of the company's share capital;
• the company to institute, prosecute, defend or discontinue specified proceedings;
• the authorisation of a member, or a person to whom a share in the company has been transmitted by will or by operation of law, to institute, prosecute, defend or discontinue specified proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company;
• restraining a person from engaging in specified conduct or from doing a specified act;
• requiring a person to do a specified act.
在大多数情况下，股东并不寻求获得公司的控制权，或者由法院裁判公司的行为，相反，他/她通常会希望自己通过股份被买断的方式退出。如果该方案无法实施，法院根据《公司法》第233条作出公司清算命令的情况并不少见。
In most circumstances the shareholder does not seek to gain control of the Company or for the course of the Company’s conduct be determined by the Court, rather, he/she will commonly seek for an exit through a buyout of his/her shares. If this course of action cannot be implemented, it is not uncommon for the Court to order a winding up of the Company under section 233 of the Act.
对公司的清算
Winding up of the Company
《公司法》第461条规定，在下列情况下可作出要求公司清算的命令：
• 董事在公司事务中为自己的利益行事，而不是为全体股东的利益行事，或以可能对其他股东不公平或不公正的方式行事；或
• 公司的事务正在以压制、不公平地损害或不公平地歧视一名或多名股东的方式进行，或以违反全体股东利益的方式进行；或
• 公司或代表公司作出的作为或不作为的行为，拟议作为或拟议不作为的行为，或者某一类公司股东的决议或拟议的决议，曾经或将会压制、不公平地损害、不公平地歧视一名或多名股东，或者曾经或将会违反全体股东的利益。
Under section 461 of the Act, an order seeking for the winding up of a Company may be made if:
• directors have acted in affairs of the company in their own interests rather than in the interests of the members as a whole, or in any other manner whatsoever that appears to be unfair or unjust to other members; or
• affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members or in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole; or
• an act or omission, or a proposed act or omission, by or on behalf of the company, or a resolution, or a proposed resolution, of a class of members of the company, was or would be oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members or was or would be contrary to the interests of the members as a whole.
鉴于（清算）这种救济措施的严重性，只有在法院认为这样做是公正和平等的情况下才会予以核准（见《公司法》第461（k）条）。在确定什么是公正和公平时，法院必须考虑到一系列复杂的情况，一般来说，法院必须认为，争议十分严重以至于除了注销该公司外，无法以其他方式解决。
Given the gravity of such a remedy, it will only be approved if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so (see section 461(k) of the Act). In determining what is just and equitable, the court is required to take into account a complex set of circumstances, but generally, the court must be of the opinion that the dispute is so serious that it is not capable of being resolved in any way other than by bringing the company’s existence to an end.
三、结论
Conclusion
针对公司董事的诉讼主要是在关系破裂（个人不满）和股东未能达成令人满意的决议或协议之后提起的。在这种情况下，特别是在压制性诉讼中，原告将通过买断其股份或公司清算的方式退出。考虑到这一点，大多数压制性案例实际上都是涉及以何种方式、何种价格让一个股东退出企业的估值案例。
Actions against the directors of the company are predominantly brought after a breakdown of relationships (a personal grievance) and a failure for the shareholders to come to a satisfactory resolution or agreement. In such circumstances, and particularly in proceedings for oppression, the complainant will seek for an exit either through a buyout of his or her shares or for the winding up of the company. Given so, most oppression cases are, in effect, valuation cases involving disputes about how, and for what price, one shareholder can exit the business.
在小型的私营企业中，股东通常会认为其所持股份的价值高于市场价格。在这种情况下，谨慎的做法是律师尽早要求进行独立估值。这种独立估值将使怀有不符合商业现实之期望的当事方认清现实，并有助于避免不必要和昂贵的诉讼。
In small private companies, it is common for shareholders to believe that the value of their shareholding is for more than what the market price is. In such circumstances, it may be prudent for the solicitor to request for an independent valuation to be taken early on. This independent valuation will shed the harsh light of reality upon parties with uncommercial expectations and aid towards the avoidance of unnecessary and costly litigation.
我们的团队
Our Team
无论您想在澳大利亚设立子公司还是收购澳大利亚公司股权或资产，文康-君益诚涉澳法律团队将为中国投资者提供最专业且全面的一站式服务。
通过与从事双边贸易和跨境投资的中澳跨国公司长期合作，我们拥有丰富的法律服务经验。
Whether you are seeking to establish a local Australian subsidiary or acquiring an interest in an Australian company or asset, Wincon – JYC Law Group’s Australia Legal Team provides an integrated end to end solution to Chinese investors.
Our experience comes from a history of working with Chinese and Australian multinationals engaged in bilateral trade and cross border investments.
