| 摘要: | 依我國證券交易法（以下簡稱「證交法」）第四十三條之六至八規定有價證 券私募，其中第四十三條之六第四項規定：公司應「符合主管機關所定條件之自 然人、法人或基金（第一項第二款之人）」之合理請求，「於私募完成前負有提 供與本次有價證券私募有關之公司財務、業務或其他資訊之義務。」公司必須充 分將該資訊告知可能應募之投資人，以利投資人作出投資決策。有價證券私募的 本質上為不公開發行，即是由特定人所認購，因此適用證交法第二十二條第一項 及第二項之結果，其必須向主管機關申報生效，始得為之。 近年來許多企業為能順利籌措資金，而多採行有價證券私募之方式，以特定 人為招募對象。私人企業的蓬勃發展，乃是國家經濟發展的主要動力之一，因應 企業所需、方便企業本身以更多元化且富有彈性的方式籌措資金，私募制度是必 行的方法之一。但此制度仍有檢討之空間，例如：認購人與發行人並不是處在對 等之地位，發行公司應有義務提供私募之相關資訊。有價證券發行公司依其業務 之性質，自設立登記後，如需二年以上之準備，始能開始營業者，經主管機關之 許可，得依章程之規定，於開始營業前分派股息。因此，對於此前二年之特別股 之股息，依公司法第二百三十四條之規定，經由經濟部核准於公司章程訂定特別 股條款後發行，開始營業前不論盈虧都可分派特別股股息，於公司開始營業後， 始回歸公司法股息分派原則之規定辦理。但發行公司對於何時開始營業之日知之 甚明，若其明知營業後將可停止分派特別股股息，卻竟未將該訊息充分載明於風 險預告書，亦未以任何方式告知認購人，而導致認購人基於錯誤資訊為認股而造 成之損害，自得以發行公司違反證券交易法等行為請求損害賠償為當。 我國私募制度是參仿美國、日本之相關法例制定完成，但美、日兩國私募制 度之經驗是否能夠完全的移植於臺灣的實務？ 在兼顧企業發展與投資保障的前 提下，如何以毋庸向主管機關申報註冊的方式（比照美、日），更方便企業行使 私募制度？如何更完善的保障認購人的獲得資訊權？如何防範企業逃避公募程 序，而制定更健全的私募制度？以上所述皆是本計畫欲比較研究之問題，且希望 探討出之結果以供實務上之參酌。
Taiwan’s Private Placement System and Practice: A Reflection Provisions regarding Private Placement and Trading of Securities are stipulated in Articles 43-6 to 43-8 of Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act (“TSEA”). According to Article 43-6, Paragraph 4 of TSEA, it provides that a public company should “[u]pon the reasonable request by a person(s) [natural persons, juristic persons, or funds meeting the conditions prescribed by the Competent Authority] under Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 [of Article 43-6] prior to consummation of the private placement, … bear the obligation to provide information on company finances, business, or other information relevant to the current private placement of securities.” Therefore, a public company is required to furnish the aforesaid information to prospective investors to facilitate them to make sound investment decision. The nature of private placement of securities is not public; hence, such securities by means of a private placement as per Article 22, Paragraphs 1 and 2, shall be effected only in compliance an effective registration with the Competent Authority. In recent years quite a few enterprises have adopted the method of private placement in order to raise funds successfully. Whilst the prosperity of private enterprises is one of the main drives to promote national’s economic development, to have more diversified and flexible ways to help fund raising of enterprises private placement is surely one of key means to achieve this end. In practice, private placement system remains room for improvement; such that the subscriber and the issuer are not in a reciprocal position, and thus the issuer should be obligated to provide the company’s relevant information. For instance, pursuant to Article 234 of the Company Act, a company due to “ … the nature of its business requires more than two years of preparation from the date of its incorporation before it can commence business, may, with the approval of the competent authority, make distribution of dividends in accordance with the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation.” Notwithstanding the enterprise operates at gain or loss, such distribution of special dividends is permissible before the commencement of business. After commencing its business operation, the said amount of dividends distribution will need to comply with the Company Act. A public company ought to be fully aware of when the business will commence. As a result, if without the full disclosure of such commencement information that causes the subscriber misconception and damage, which should be a valid cause of action under the TSEA. Taiwan’s private placement system has been followed from those of the U.S. and Japan; yet, whether the American or Japanese private placement experience can fully implant into ours is still an open question. By employing the comparative study methodology this research project therefore will seek to explore those issues remained in hope to be able to be of contribution to practical reference in the future. |
