上海闸北区牙防所:法人代表变更

总经理,你去查查公司法,上面有相关内容

这个问题在公司法上和诉讼法上有不同的认识，学界的争论也很多。按规定应注销.参见如下的论文.

Limited Liability and the Corporation.
[*89] Limited liability is a fundamental principle of corporate law. Yet liability has never been absolutely limited. Courts occasionally allow creditors to "pierce the corporate veil," which means that shareholders must satisfy creditors' claims. "Piercing" seems to happen freakishly. Like lightning, it is rare, severe, and unprincipled. There is a consensus that the whole area of limited liability, and conversely of piercing the corporate veil, is among the most confusing in corporate law. n1
We argue to the contrary that economic analysis -- in particular the theory of the firm and the economics of insurance -- explains the legal treatment of limited liability. Both the rules and the exceptions serve valuable functions.
I. INTRODUCTION
It may be helpful to recall what limited liability is. The liability of "the corporation" is limited by the fact that the corporation is not real. It is no more than a name for a complex set of contracts among managers, workers, and contributors of capital. It has no existence independent of these relations. The rule of limited liability [*90] means that the investors in the corporation are not liable for more than the amount they invest. A person who pays $ 100 for stock risks that $ 100, but no more. A person who buys a bond for $ 100 or sells goods to the firm for $ 100 on credit risks $ 100, but no more. The managers and the other workers are not vicariously liable for the firm's deeds. No one risks more than he invests.
Limited liability is not unique to corporations. Indeed it is the rule. Suppose a bank lends $ 100 to a partnership, and the partnership's liabilities later greatly exceed its assets. (Perhaps the partnership buries toxic waste and incurs stupendous costs of cleaning up the mess.) The bank may lose the $ 100, but it will not be required to contribute any additional capital. Its liability is limited to its investment, exactly as the shareholder's liability is limited in a corporation.
The instances of "unlimited" liability are few. The general partners of a partnership may be required to contribute additional capital to satisfy the association's debts. Even here, though, a discharge in bankruptcy enables the partner to limit his liability to the assets he possesses at the time the partnership requires more capital. Limitations on liability turn out to be pervasive.
In order to understand these limitations on further contributions of capital, it is necessary to ask two questions. First, why are the contributions of investors ever limited? Why do equity and debt investors risk no more than the amount of their investments? Second, why is risk sometimes shifted among the investors? The equity investors in a corporation lose their investments before the debt investors do. Debt consequently is less risky. Why is this beneficial? And if the reallocation of some risk is beneficial, why aren't there gains from greater reallocations, such as requiring equity investors to chip in additional capital, thus reducing the debt investors' risk even further?
In addressing these questions, we do not write on a clean slate. Henry Manne, in an important contribution, argues that the modern publicly held corporation with many small shareholders could not exist without limited liability. n2 If investors could be required to supply unlimited amounts of additional capital, wealthy people would be reluctant to make small investments. Every share of stock would place all of their personal assets at risk. To guard against this risk, the investor would reduce the number of different firms he holds and monitor each more closely.他的理论只解释了有限责任对股东的意义
[*91] Manne's insight is powerful but incomplete. Limited liability does not eliminate the risk of business failure but rather shifts some of the risk to creditors. The creditors can invest in T-bills and other riskless securities, and they will not make risky investments in firms unless offered more interest, which comes out of the shareholders' returns. Why are the increased returns demanded by creditors not exactly offset by the lower returns paid to shareholders? Manne's analysis does not explain why creditors bear as much risk as they do.
There are several reasons why the value of the firm might be maximized if creditors bear a substantial portion of the risk of business failure. Richard Posner maintains that creditors might be appropriate risk bearers because they are less risk averse than stockholders or have superior information. n3 We find this implausible. Creditors are generally more risk averse than stockholders; why else do creditors arrange for the equity claimants to bear the most risk? Creditors accept a lower rate of return on investment precisely because the stockholders are wiped out first. The variance of stockholders' returns is greater; they take the most risk and reap the gains if the firms do well.
The possibility that creditors might be the superior risk bearers because of superior information has considerably more appeal, but it cannot completely explain limited liability. It does not explain, for example, why investors need not contribute more capital to satisfy the claims of involuntary (tort) creditors. Moreover, though creditors may sometimes possess superior information, this will not always be true. To the contrary, we expect creditors to know less. The equity investors have the residual claim. They stand to gain or lose almost the whole value of modest fluctuations in the fortunes of the firm. The residual claimants therefore have incentives to invest in the amount of monitoring likely to produce these gains (or avoid the losses), net of the costs of monitoring. n4 Debt claimants, protected by the "equity cushion," are more likely to be ignorant. They might do more monitoring if debt claims were more concentrated than equity claims, so that there would be less free riding on information, but no data show dramatic differences in the concentration of holdings.
[*92] Halpern, Trebilcock, and Turnbull have advanced a different explanation for limited liability. n5 Their stimulating article argues that limited liability is necessary for the existence of an organized securities market. If equity investors could be required to contribute additional capital, the value of shares would not be the same to every investor. The greater a particular investor's wealth in relation to that of other investors in the same firm, the higher the probability that the investor's personal wealth would be reached in the event of corporate default. The greater the anticipated cost of this additional capital contribution, the less this investor would be willing to pay for shares. Because different investors would attach different values to shares, depending on the investors' wealth, it would be impossible to conduct an organized liquid market. Limited liability makes markets possible.
The relation between limited liability and organized securities markets is fundamental to an understanding of the rule of limited liability, but it is not a complete explanation. Indeed in one sense it merely restates the question. Why is it important for the residual claimants of one kind of firm (publicly held corporations) to have access to organized securities markets while residual claimants of other firms (partnerships, close corporations, cooperatives, and so forth) do not? A complete explanation of limited liability must answer this question. A related point is that organized securities markets provide benefits that cannot be completely appropriated by the participants. Unless investors in a firm can capture private benefits exceeding the private costs, they will not incur these costs. An understanding of why some firms but not others incur the costs of participation in an organized securities market sheds much light on the rationale of limited liability.
Finally, why could markets with unlimited liability not be organized in ways that would prevent wealth from making a difference? Firms could obtain insurance for the investors, or the actual investments could be made by clearing houses or other intermediaries with constant wealth. Investors in futures markets regularly put at risk more than their initial investments, but guarantees issued by brokers and clearing houses permit the operation of liquid markets. An explanation of limited liability must establish why we do not see risk shifting or guarantees of this sort among investors in corporations.
We provide an explanation for why limited liability facilitates [*93] the corporate form of organization. We show in Part II that the distinctive aspects of the publicly held corporation -- delegation of management to a diverse group of agents and risk bearing by those who contribute capital -- depend on an institution like limited liability. We also argue that (voluntary) creditors as well as stockholders benefit from a rule of limited liability. If limited liability were not provided by law, firms would attempt to create it by contract. The legal rule enables firms to obtain the benefits of limited liability at lower cost.
In Part III we discuss the perennial question whether limited liability allows stockholders to transfer the risk of business failure to creditors. Although the existence of involuntary creditors ensures the existence of uncompensated risk, its magnitude is minimized by firms' incentives to insure. We discuss why firms might choose to insure and why it is not worthwhile for them to insure completely. We analyze in Part IV the rules for piercing the corporate veil. We argue that the various formulations that have been advanced by courts can be understood, at least roughly, as attempts to balance the benefits of limited liability against the costs associated with excessive risk taking. Finally, we consider in Part V a variety of other legal doctrines that are or could be used to reduce the probability of uncompensated risk transfers.
II. THE RATIONALE OF LIMITED LIABILITY
We begin this section with a discussion of the relation between the theory of the firm and limited liability. We then analyze the effect of limited liability on firms' cost of capital.

A. Limited Liability and the Theory of the Firm
People can conduct economic activity in many forms. Those who perceive entrepreneurial opportunities must decide whether to organize a sole proprietorship, general or limited partnership, business trust, close or publicly held corporation. Debt investors in all of these ventures possess limited liability. Equity investors in publicly held corporations, limited partnerships, and business trusts do too. Limited liability for equity investors has long been explained as a benefit bestowed on investors by the state. It is much more accurately analyzed as a logical consequence of the differences among the forms for conducting economic activity.
Publicly held corporations typically dominate other organizational forms when the technology of production requires firms to combine both the specialized skills of multiple agents and large [*94] amounts of capital. n6 The publicly held corporation facilitates the division of labor. The distinct functions of managerial skills and the provision of capital (and the bearing of risk) may be separated and assigned to different people -- workers who lack capital, and owners of funds who lack specialized production skills. Those who invest capital can bear additional risk, because each investor is free to participate in many ventures. The holder of a diversified portfolio of investments is more willing to bear the risk that a small fraction of his investments will not pan out.
Of course this separation of functions is not costless. The separation of investment and management requires firms to create devices by which these participants monitor each other and guarantee their own performance. Neither group will be perfectly trustworthy. Moreover, managers who do not obtain the full benefits of their own performance do not have the best incentives to work efficiently. The costs of the separation of investment and management (agency costs) may be substantial. Nonetheless, we know from the survival of large corporations that the costs generated by agency relations are outweighed by the gains from separation and specialization of function. Limited liability reduces the costs of this separation and specialization. n7
First, limited liability decreases the need to monitor. All investors risk losing wealth because of the actions of agents. They could monitor these agents more closely. The more risk they bear, the more they will monitor. But beyond a point more monitoring is not worth the cost. Moreover, specialized risk bearing implies that many investors will have diversified holdings. Only a small portion of their wealth will be invested in any one firm. These diversified investors have neither the expertise nor the incentive to monitor the actions of specialized agents. Limited liability makes diversification and passivity a more rational strategy and so potentially reduces the cost of operating the corporation.
Of course, rational shareholders understand the risk that the managers' acts will cause them loss. They do not meekly accept it. The price they are willing to pay for shares will reflect the risk. Managers therefore find ways to offer assurances to investors without [*95] the need for direct monitoring; those who do this best will attract the most capital from investors. Managers who do not implement effective controls increase the discount. As it grows, so does the investors' incentive to incur costs to reduce the divergence of interest between specialized managers and risk bearers. n8 Limited liability reduces these costs. Because investors' potential losses are "limited" to the amount of their investment as opposed to their entire wealth, they spend less to protect their positions.
Second, limited liability reduces the costs of monitoring other shareholders. n9 Uner a rule exposing equity investors to additional liability, the greater the wealth of other shareholders, the lower the probability that any one shareholder's assets will be needed to pay a judgment. Thus existing shareholders would have incentives to engage in costly monitoring of other shareholders to ensure that they do not transfer assets to others or sell to others with less wealth. Limited liability makes the identity of other shareholders irrelevant and thus avoids these costs.
Third, by promoting free transfer of shares, limited liability gives managers incentives to act efficiently. We have emphasized that individual shareholders lack the expertise and incentive to monitor the actions of specialized agents. Investors individually respond to excessive agency costs by disinvesting. Of course, the price at which shareholders are able to sell reflects the value of the firm as affected by decisions of specizlized agents. But the ability of individual investors to sell creates new opportunities for investors as a group and thus constrains agents' actions. So long as shares are tied to votes, poorly run firms will attract new investors who can assemble large blocs at a discount and install new managerial teams. n10 This potential for displacement gives existing managers incentives to operate efficiently in order to keep share prices high.
Although this effect of the takeover mechanism is well known, the relation between takeovers and limited liability is not. Limited liability reduces the costs of purchasing shares. Under a rule of limited liability, the value of shares is determined by the present value of the income stream generated by a firm's assets. The identity [*96] and wealth of other investors is irrelevant. Shares are fungible; they trade at one price in liquid markets. Under a rule of unlimited liability, as Halpern, Trebilcock, and Turnbull emphasized, shares would not be fungible. Their value would be a function of the present value of future cash flows and of the wealth of shareholders. The lack of fungibility would impede their acquisition. An acquiror who wanted to purchase a control bloc of shares under a rule of unlimited liability might have to negotiate separately with individual shareholders, paying different prices to each. Worse, the acquiror in corporate control transactions typically is much wealthier than the investors from which it acquires the shares. The anticipated cost预期成本of additional capital contributions would be higher to the new holder than the old ones. This may be quite important to a buyer considering the acquisition of a firm in financial trouble, for there would be a decent chance of being required to contribute to satisfy debts if the plan for revitalization of the firm should go awry. Limited liability allows a person to buy a large bloc without taking any risk of being surcharged, and thus it facilitates beneficial control transactions. A rule that facilitates transfers of control also induces managers to work more effectively to stave off such transfers, and so it reduces the costs of specialization whether or not a firm is acquired.
Fourth, limited liability makes it possible for market prices to impound additional information about the value of firms. With unlimited liability, shares would not be homogeneous commodities, so they would no longer have one market price. Investors would therefore be required to expend greater resources analyzing the prospects of the firm in order to know whether "the price is right." When all can trade on the same terms, though, investors trade until the price of shares reflects the available information about a firm's prospects. Most investors need not expend resources on search; they can accept the market price as given and purchase at a "fair" price. n11
Fifth, as Henry Manne emphasized, limited liability allows more efficient diversification. Investors can minimize risk by owning a diversified portfolio of assets. Firms can raise capital at lower costs because investors need not bear the special risk associated with nondiversified holdings. This is true, though, only under a [*97] rule of limited liability or some good substitute. Diversification would increase rather than reduce risk under a rule of unlimited liability. If any one firm went bankrupt, an investor could lose his entire wealth. The rational strategy under unlimited liability, therefore, would be to minimize the number of securities held. As a result, investors would be forced to bear risk that could have been avoided by diversification, and the cost to firms of raising capital would rise.
Sixth, limited liability facilitates optimal investment decisions. When investors hold diversified portfolios, managers maximize investors' welfare by investing in any project with a positive net present value. They can accept high-variance ventures (such as the development of new products) without exposing the investors to ruin. Each investor can hedge against the failure of one project by holding stock in other firms. In a world of unlimited liability, though, managers would behave differently. They would reject as "too risky" some projects with positive net present values. Investors would want them to do this because it would be the best way to reduce risks. n12 By definition this would be a social loss, because projects with a positive net present value现在净价值 are beneficial uses of capital.
Both those who want to raise capital for entrepreneurial ventures, and society as a whole, receive benefits from limited liability. The equity investors will do about as well under one rule of liability as another. Every investor