近几年受疫情、国际局势、市场经济等诸多因素影响，经济发展严重受阻，以致公司未偿债务暴增，公司被诉案件频发。2024年7月1日，新修订的《公司法》开始施行。本次修订高度重视保护债权人利益，大大拓宽了债权人的维权途径。基于此，我们将从债权人视角出发，浅析新《公司法》下实现债权的多种途径。
Economic development in recent years has been severely hindered by the pandemic, international tensions and market fluctuations, resulting in a surge in companies’ outstanding debt and a hike in litigation against them. On 1 July 2024, the amended Company Law came into effect, strongly emphasising the protection of creditors’ interests by expanding their avenues for recourse. This article provides a brief analysis of approaches available to creditors for realising their claims under the new Company Law.
向股东主张权利
Claims against shareholders
要求股东提前出资。新《公司法》将加速出资到期的适用条件放宽为只要满足“公司不能清偿到期债务”，债权人可以据此直接向股东进行主张。需要注意的是，目前条文并未明确股东承担责任的具体形式，是采用注册资本入库原则还是可以直接清偿特定债务，在实务上可能存在争议。
通过股权转让出资责任制度向原股东主张权益。如果股东的股权是通过转让的方式继受取得，则除受让人之外，可同时要求原转让人在未缴出资范围内承担相应的补充责任。
向发起人主张相关权益。公司发起人对于其他发起人在出资不足范围内承担连带责任，即债权人可在公司发起人缺乏清偿能力时将其他发起人列为共同被告，以承担相应的连带责任。
向抽逃出资股东主张权益。股东抽逃出资的应当返还抽逃的出资；给公司造成损失的，负有责任的董事、监事、高级管理人员应当与该股东承担连带赔偿责任。故若债权人发现股东存在抽逃出资行为，可要求股东及负有责任的董事、监事、高级管理人员在抽逃出资的本息范围内承担责任。
公司违法减资时，可要求股东赔偿损失。当存在违法减资情形时，股东应当退还其收到的资金，减免股东出资的应当恢复原状；给公司造成损失的，股东及负有责任的董事、监事、高级管理人员应当承担赔偿责任。违法减资行为对债权人不发生效力，债权人可要求股东及负有责任的董事、监事、高级管理人员在违法减资范围内承担赔偿责任。
通过利润分配制度向违法分配利润的股东主张权益。公司违法向股东分配利润的，股东应当将违反规定分配的利润退还公司；给公司造成损失的，股东及负有责任的董事、监事、高级管理人员应当承担赔偿责任。
公司注销后向违法注销股东主张权益。公司通过简易程序注销公司登记，股东承诺内容不实的，应当对注销登记前的债务承担连带责任。对此，若债权人发现公司在注销过程中存在过错，可对股东主张赔偿责任。
Accelerating payment of capital contributions. The new Company Law allows creditors to claim against shareholders for advanced payment of the capital contributions subscribed if companies are unable to discharge debts when they become due. Notably, the law does not specify the exact form of shareholders’ satisfaction of such liability, leaving it unclear whether shareholders are to contribute funds to companies’ registered capital or directly settle specific debts. This ambiguity may lead to disputes in practice.
Claims against original shareholders under the shared liability obligation following equity transfers. If a shareholder acquires equity through transfer, both the transferee and the original transferor may be held liable for the outstanding capital contributions, while the transferor is to bear the supplementary liability.
Claims against promoters. Company promoters are held jointly and severally liable for the outstanding capital contributions of other promoters. If a promoter proves unable to fulfil its financial obligations, creditors shall have the right to name other promoters as co-defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable.
Claims against shareholders illegally withdrawing registered capital. Capital withdrawn illegally by shareholders shall be returned, while the responsible directors, supervisors and senior officers (DSOs) are held jointly and severally liable for any losses incurred by the company. In this respect, once a shareholder is found by creditors to have illegally withdrawn the registered capital, creditors may hold the shareholder and responsible DSOs liable for recovery to the extent of the principal and interest of the withdrawn amount.
Claims against shareholders for indemnification for illegal capital reduction. In case of illegal reduction of registered capital, shareholders are obliged to return the capital received or restore their capital contributions. Responsible DSOs are held liable for any damages caused. Illegal capital reduction is ineffective against creditors. Thus, creditors may hold the shareholders and responsible DSOs liable for compensation to the extent of the illegal capital reduction.
Claims against shareholders based on the profit distribution system. In case of illegal profit distributions to shareholders, shareholders are obliged to return such distributions to the company. Both the shareholders and responsible DSOs are held liable for compensation.
Claims against shareholders after illegal cancellation of company. In case of company deregistration via the summary procedure, shareholders who are found to have made false commitments are held jointly and severally liable for the debts incurred prior to the deregistration. Creditors may hold shareholders liable for compensation if any errors are identified in the company cancellation process.
法人人格否认制度
Disregard of corporate personality
新《公司法》对法人人格否认制度进行了一定程度的扩衍，加大了债权人的权益保护。
纵向人格否认制度。该制度延续了原《公司法》的规定。若公司股东滥用公司独立法人地位和有限责任原则以逃避债务，导致债权人利益严重受损，债权人可请求法院否认公司的法人人格，直接向股东追偿。
横向人格否认制度。本次新《公司法》首次以立法形式确立了横向人格否认制度，其核心在于“公司人格混同”及“过度支配控制”。当股东利用其控制的多个公司进行恶意串通以逃避债务时，债权人可据此要求控制股东或实际控制人对公司债务承担责任。
一人公司特殊规定。一人公司在举证责任方面有着较为特殊的规定，即举证责任倒置。因此，如股东无法证明其个人财产与公司财产相互独立，则债权人可以要求股东对公司的债务承担连带责任。
Under the new Company Law, the concept of disregard of corporate personality is expanded to enhance protection of creditors’ rights and interests.
Forward disregard of corporate personality. In alignment with the pre-amendment Company Law, it is stipulated that creditors may request the court to disregard the corporate personality of the company and recover against shareholders, if shareholders abuse the independent corporate personality and limited liability of the company to evade debts and harm the interests of creditors.
Horizontal disregard of corporate personality. The new Company Law has, for the first time, entrenched the horizontal disregard of corporate personality through legislation that focuses on “corporate personality confusion” and “excessive domination and control”. When shareholders use multiple companies under their control to collude maliciously and evade debts, creditors may hold the controlling shareholders or the actual controllers liable for company debt.
One-person company. In the case of a one-person company, the burden of proof is reversed. If shareholders fail to prove separation of their personal assets from the company assets, creditors may hold the shareholders jointly and severally liable for the company’s debts.
向“董监高”主张权利
Claims against DSOs
除前述主体之外，新《公司法》亦就公司董事、监事、高级管理人员的义务新增了诸多规定，要求其在相应情形下承担责任，如董事未尽催缴义务，以及董监高对公司股东抽逃出资、违法减资、违法分红或清算负有责任等。另外还新增了对于影子董事和事实董事的相关规定，并将其忠实、勤勉义务贯彻立法始终，增加了董监高的责任，也给债权人维权提供更多的选择。
本次新《公司法》结合了曾经的司法实务并借鉴了海外制度的经验，在股东出资义务、董监高责任、清算责任、法人人格否认等多项制度上都加强了对债权人的保护力度，为债权人利益实现提供了全新路径。同时这也提示公司，作为经营管理方亦应结合新《公司法》的相关规定，评估企业风险并做好合规管理。
The new Company Law also introduces additional obligations for DSOs, holding them liable under multiple circumstances, such as directors’ failure to urge capital contributions, as well as DSOs being responsible for shareholders’ illegal capital withdrawal, illegal capital reduction, unlawful dividends or liquidation.
New regulations are also imposed on shadow directors and de facto directors, their duties of loyalty and diligence being emphasised throughout the legislation. These changes have reinforced the responsibilities of DSOs, with more options provided to creditors for interest protection.
The new Company Law has integrated past judicial practices and international experiences to enhance creditor protection in such areas as shareholders’ obligation of capital contribution, DSOs’ responsibilities, liquidation duties and disregard of corporate personality. New avenues are thus made available for creditors to safeguard their interests. Companies are advised to assess their risks and ensure compliance in accordance with the new Company Law.
