پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,245 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,884 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,529,573 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,302,306 |
تحلیلی در خصوص قابلیت طرح دعوای مستقیم سهامداران برای مطالبۀ زیان بازتابی؛ مطالعۀ تطبیقی در نظام حقوقی انگلستان و ایران | ||
| مطالعات حقوق خصوصی | ||
| دوره 52، شماره 3، آبان 1401، صفحه 451-471 اصل مقاله (332.05 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jlq.2022.336146.1007634 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| لعیا جنیدی* 1؛ مصطفی کوشکی2 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| با ورود خسارت به شرکت محتمل است که سهامداران آن شرکت نیز از طریق کاهش ارزش سهام و سود آن دچار زیان شوند. این مقاله تلاش دارد با شیوۀ توصیفی و تحلیلی و به‌صورت تطبیقی به این پرسش اساسی پاسخ دهد که آیا سهامداران می‌توانند به‌صورت مستقیم برای زیان‌های وارده به خود (که به‌نوعی بازتاب زیان وارده به شرکت است) اقدام به طرح دعوا علیه شخص زیان‌زننده کنند یا خیر؟ نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در حقوق شرکت‌های انگلستان دعوای مستقیم سهامداران برای مطالبۀ زیان بازتابی با وجود قاعدۀ مهم «عدم وجود زیان بازتابی» محدود به موارد استثنایی نظیر استنکاف شرکت از طرح دعوا و هنگامی‌که شرکت در نتیجۀ رفتار خوانده قادر به طرح دعوا برای مطالبۀ خسارت خود نیست، شده است. در حقوق شرکت‌های ایران نیز با آنکه تردیدهایی در خصوص مطالبۀ خسارت ناشی از کاهش ارزش سهام و سود آن در آرای هیأت داوری بورس و اوراق بهادار وجود دارد، ولی به‌نظر می‌رسد چنین ضرری قابل مطالبه است. البته برخی ملاحظات عملی مانند امکان تعدد دعاوی سهامداران و بحث کارایی (هزینه-فایده) موجب می‌شود تا علی‌الاصول شرکت را مقدم در طرح دعوا بدانیم. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| شرکت تجارتی؛ دعوای سهامداران؛ زیان بازتابی؛ قاعدۀ «عدم وجود زیان بازتابی»؛ قاعدۀ «اولویت شرکت». | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An Analysis of the Shareholders’ Claims for Reflective Loss: A Comparative Study in the Legal System of England and Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Laya Joneydi1؛ mostafa kooshki2 | ||
| 1 Assistant Professor, Private Law Department, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2PhD Candidate, in Private Law, University of Tehran Tehran,Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Can a shareholder recover a personal loss resulting from a loss suffered by the company? Unfortunately, that apparently simple question has no simple answer. The company lawyer may argue that the answer lies in basic company law-as a separate legal entity, it is the company itself that must sue to recoup its own losses. That leaves the shareholder with no cause of action and no standing to sue. The shareholder derivative action, available under certain conditions, is still a corporate action, seeking relief for the company itself. Simply, that means that a shareholder cannot recover damages suffered by the company. A comparative approach is relevant to this investigation as it could provide invaluable insights which could enrich Iranian jurisprudence in case where shareholders will seek to claim for reflective loss. This article, from a comparative law perspective explores whether shareholders should be able to claim such a loss which is merely reflective of the company’s loss. The results of the article show that in the UK corporate law, the direct action of shareholders to claim a reflective loss is limited to exceptional cases (such as where the company is unable or unwilling to pursue the claim) due to the important rule of "no reflective loss". The origins of the rule come from the decision in Prudential Assurance v Newman Industries, in which the court said: “what [the shareholder] cannot do is to recover damages merely because the company in which he is interested has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the diminution the market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution in dividend, because such a “loss” is merely a reflection of the loss suffered by the company. The shareholder does not suffer any personal loss. His only “loss” is through the company, in the diminution in the value of the net assets of the company. The plaintiff,s shares are merely a right of participation in the company on the terms of the articles of association . The share themselves, his right in the participation, are not directly affected by the wrongdoing . The plaintiff still holds all the shares as his own absolutely unencumbered property”. In the Iranian corporate law, despite the doubts about the claim for damages resulting from the reduction of shares and its profits in the decisions of the arbitration board of stock exchange and securities, it seems that such a loss is compensable. Because on the one hand, by examining the conditions of compensable loss in Iran's civil liability system, the loss caused by the diminution in the value of shares and dividends is a personal and independent loss for the shareholders, and any restriction in this field is a violation of the rights of the shareholders, and the person causing the loss must pay all the losses caused for his actions , and on the other hand, the argument that the shareholder's personal right ought to be subordinated so as to protect the interests of the company's creditors and the autonomy of company would seem somewhat less compelling. Ironically, respecting the principle of company autonomy demands the recognition that shareholders are separate from the company, which in turn forms the premise upon which rights and obligations of shareholders are distinguished from those of the corporate entity. If indeed the shareholder’s right is an independent personal right, the fact that the loss suffered is reflective of the company's loss should not lead to a destruction of that right. Of course, some practical considerations such as the possibility of multiple shareholder lawsuits and efficiency (cost-benefit evaluation) lead us to consider the company as a priority in the litigation without limiting the personal right of shareholders to claim personal loss. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Company, Shareholder Claims, Reflective Loss, "No Reflective Loss" Rule, ‘Priority of Company’ Rule. | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع
الف) فارسی و عربی
DOI: 10.22066/cilamag.2021.244155
8. تفرشی، محمدعیسی؛ ابراهیم شعاریان ستاری (1381). «سهم و حقوق ناشی از آن در شرکت‌های سهامی»، پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 4، ش 7، ص 49-21، در: https://qjpl.atu.ac.ir/article_3085.html (19 بهمن 1400)
9. جنیدی، لعیا؛ سمیرا سلیمان‌زاده (1400). «عبور از قواعد سنتی حقوق شرکت‌ها در گروه شرکت‌های تجاری، تحول ماهوی و آیینی»، پژوهشنامۀ بازرگانی، دورۀ 25، ش 98، ص 126-95. در:
http://pajooheshnameh.itsr.ir/article_245366 (19 بهمن 1400)
DOI: 20.1001.1.22516751.1394.19.3.2.9
ب) خارجی
21. Armour, John. (2019). “Derivative actions: a framework for decisions”, 135, Law QuarterlyReview,pp:412-436 ,http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/productdetails.aspx? recordid=473&productid=7116, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 22. Charles, Mitchell (2004). »Shareholders’ claims for reflective loss« 120 , Law Quarterly Review, pp: 457, 475. a53b0899-8552-4dac-a01d-ae014e3159a1)/export.html, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 23.Davies, Paul (2008). Gower and Davies' principles of modern company law, Sweet & Maxwell, 8th Edition. 24. de Jong, Bas,(2013). “Shareholders’ Claims for Reflective Loss: A Comparative Legal Analysis” , European Business Organization Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1., Available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1939755, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 25. de Wulf, Hans (2010). “Direct Shareholder Suits for Damages Based on Reflective Losses”, De Gruyter . https://DOI:/10.1515/9783899496321.1537. 26. Dignam, Alan, John Lowry (2014). Company Law, 8th edition, Oxford University Press . 27. Hardman, Jonathan. (2022). “Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd: Reflective loss and the autonomy of company law”, Modern Law Review, 85(1), 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12663. 28. Koh, Alan (2016). “Reconstructing the reflective loss principle”, J Corp Law Stud 16(2),pp: 373–401. https://DOI.org/10.1080/14735970.2016.1191298. 29. Koh, Pearlie. (2011). “The Shareholder’s Personal Claim: Allowing Recovery for Reflective Losses”, 23, Singapore Academy of LJ. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1083, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 30. Lin, Joyce Lee Suet., (2007), »Barring recovery for diminution in value of shares on the reflective loss principle« 66, Cambridge Law Journal 537, pp. 537 - 558 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197307000736. 31. Lowry, John. and Arad. Reisberg (2012). Pettet’s Company Law: Company Law and Corporate Finance (4th edn, Pearson). 32. Mukwiri, Jonathan. (2005). “The No Reflective Loss Principle”, 26, Company Lawyer ,pp:304-307. http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/lsn /617562.html, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 33. Saunders, Benjamin . (2004). “Putting the Spoils of Litigation into the Shareholder’s Pockets: When can Shareholders bring a Personal Action against the Directors of their Company?”, 22, Company and Securities LJ , pp.535, 544. http://hdl.handle. net/10536/DRO/DU: 30085905, (Accessed 09 January 2022). 34. Sterling,Mary Jane (1987). “The Theory and Policy of Shareholder Actions in Tort”, 50 MLR, pp. 468-491 . DOI:/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1987.tb01721.x | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 668 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,286 |
||