南京公司律师提示：在回购股权前应事先协议

 

 

　　As a legal counsel for many start-ups,I find out that what is the most important concern with respect to the partnership among the founders is that they did not clarify very clearly about their powers,rights,or influence related to the company.For Example,who will take charge of every day operations of the corporation?Who will be responsible for marketing,who will be vested more voting rights than the equity held by the this shareholder,or whether the company or other shareholders have the absolute right to redeem the shares held by one shareholder when this shareholder is going to quit the company?Furthermore,If such shareholder refuses to do so,will the other shareholders be entitled to filing legal actions against him for the mandatory enforcement of their right to redeem such shares?These are very important questions.

 

　　作为许多初创公司的法律顾问，南京公司律师许光律师（电话微信同号17712855901）发现在创始人之间的合作关系的一个主要问题是他们对于他们各自对公司所具有的权限、权利或影响没有界定清楚。比如，谁应该负责公司的日常经营？谁负责市场营销？谁应被赋予超过持股比例的表决权？当股东离开公司的时候，公司或者其他股东是否有权赎回其股权?更重要的是，其他股东是否有权提起诉讼以强制执行赎回股权的权利?这些都是非常重要的问题。

 

　　Let's take the case for example.Tom,Jerry and Lucy co-founded technology company,this company is intended to focus on a special technology,which will make web viewing and internet surfing more efficient.Therefore,this company highly relies on the research and development of new technology.Tom has made the largest sum of capital contribution equivalent of RMB 3 million,which comprises 60%of initial capital of this company.Jerry has made a contribution equivalent of RMB 1.5 million,which comprises 30%of total capital.Lucy made only a contribution of RMB 500,000,which comprises only 10%initial total capital.Due to Lucy’s engineering background,she was responsible for the core department of the company,the department of research and development,and she was also responsible recruiting technology engineers and training them.Tom only made a large sum of capital contribution,but he neither was responsible for the daily operations of the company nor was he responsible for any technological progress,while he was having another job.Jerry also did not commit himself to the company.Because this company has developed cutting edge technology,a boss of big technology company wanted to be the investor and made contributions equivalent of RMB 5 million in order to get 20%of total shares of this company.Three of the initial founders agreed that arrangement of investment,when Tom designed a new development strategy,Lucy strongly opposed and stated that this strategy would totally destroy the company,because it could not adapt to the current situation of the market and will have no attractions for the customers,and the strategy would exhaust the cash flow,as the technology Tom intended to develop is neither practical nor marketable.

 

　　我们来看如下的一个案例。汤姆、杰瑞和露西共同创立了一家科技公司，这家公司的目的在于开发让网络浏览效率更高的特定技术。因此这家公司高度依赖于对新技术的研发工作。，汤姆所投入的资金最多，达到了300万元人民币，占该公司，初始资本的60%，杰瑞投入相当于150万人民币的资金，占公司总资本的30%，而露西只投入资金50万元，只占公司初始总资本的10%。由于露西的工程专业背景，她负责公司的核心部门也就是研发部门，也负责招聘技术工程人员以及技术人员的训练。汤姆只是为公司投入了一大笔资金，但是他既不负责公司的日常经营，也不负责公司的技术开发，因为他还有别的工作。杰瑞也并没有为公司付出很多精力。由于该公司研发的技术属于尖端技术，一家大科技公司的老总，很希望能够投资，提供500万元的资金以获取公司股权的20%，三位创始人都同意了这个投资安排。但当汤姆提出新的发展计划，露西对此坚决反对，并认为，这将会毁掉公司的基础，因为它并不符合当前的市场情况，对消费者也没有吸引力，这一发展将会消耗公司的现金流。汤姆所建议发展的技术，既不实际也没有市场前景。

 

　　They had very strong dispute,however,even after the introduction of new investors,Tom still had 48%of total shares.Having found it was almost impossible to successfully block Tom’s plan,Lucy wanted to quit,but she told tom that due to her hard effort,the company's evaluation has dramatically increased,thus her shares now could be valued at a price of RMB three million.At the beginning,Tom agreed to purchase the shares held by Lucy,but after Lucy offered the price,he did not want to purchase because he thought the shares were overrated.Finally,Jerry agreed to buy 5%shares and Tom then agreed to buy the remaining 5%.He said regretfully,that he should have signed very complete contract with the other shareholders and in this agreement it should be clearly stipulated which conditions should allow the other shareholders to redeem the shares and how to determine the share price.

 

　　他们之间有了如此之大的争议，不过，即使在引入新投资人后，汤姆仍然持有48%的股权。当露西发现改变汤姆的计划从股权结构来看几乎不可能后，露西要求退出并由汤姆收购其股份。她对汤姆指出，如果不是由于她的不懈努力，公司的估值不可能获得戏剧性的增长，因此她要求汤姆以300万元的价格进行收购。一开始，汤姆同意收购，但露西出价后，汤姆觉得价格被高估了，又不同意收购了。不过最终，杰瑞同意购买其中5%的股份，而汤姆也同意购买剩下的5%。事后，汤姆后悔地说，如果当时他与其他股东签订了完整的股东协议，并明确规定哪些情况下其他股东可以强制赎回股权和股权价格如何确定，这一问题也就可以完全避免了。

 

　　Nanjing Corporate Lawyer suggests that the form of limited company is most flexible form the perspective of corporate autonomy.The shareholders can make any framework as regards shareholding issues as well as management issues which are not compliant with non-mandatory rules,regulations stipulated on corporate law.This is because,aside from providing model rules,the corporate law also allows party autonomy,as long as the shareholders and company comply with the mandatory rules listed in the corporate law.In order to avoid the conflicts mentioned above to occur,the shareholders may come into agreement which restricts people’s ability to quit the company or withdraw their money from selling shares.For instance,the shareholders’agreement and corporate articles of association can clearly state that anyone who would like to sell the shares and leave the company must allow other shareholders to have priority to redeem the shares and the price is not negotiable but set at a fixed rate or based upon on fixed way of calculation.

 

　　南京公司律师认为，从公司自治这一角度而言，有限责任公司的形式是最为灵活的。股东可以决定持股和管理的框架，这一框架可以和公司法中所规定的非强制性规定不完全一致。这是因为,除了提供示范性规定之外，只要公司和股东遵从公司法的强制性规定，公司法也允许当事人自治。为了防止上述所提及的情况发生，股东可以通过协议限制彼此离职的能力或者限制通过出售股权撤回投资。比如，股东协议和公司章程可以明确约定，任何想要出售股权并离开公司的人应允许其他股东优先赎回其股权，出售价格不可协商，为固定费率，或者基于固定计算方式所得出。