对赌协议的法理学分析.pdf

摘 要 对赌协议对企业成功获得股权融资有许多帮助，在融资实务中，许多企业依靠 各种不同形式的对赌协议获得了股权融资资金。但在海富投资与甘肃世恒签订对 赌协议的案例中，国内各级法院对同一个案件却分别做了不同的判决。不禁的让 人疑惑，中国司法实务中，法官为何对同一案件的判断差异如此巨大，以至于难 以维护法律体系的稳定性及预测性。 从海富投资与甘肃世恒签订对赌协议的案例来看，案件的基本情况并不复杂， 各级法院对案例的事实认定并没有任何困难。造成各级法院的判决差异主要有两 个方面的原因：一是对适用何种法律规定的认识不同，导致各级法院适用不同的 法律规定做出判决；二是因为对赌协议属于新生事物，各级法院对对赌协议的本 质属性缺乏清楚的认识，导致在看待对赌协议时持有偏见。 本文试图结合对赌协议无效案的分析，对司法实践中法官如何避免以上两个方 面的错误提出建议。并对股权投资领域的一些基本逻辑及事实做出介绍，以期减 少法律从业者对股权投资的不正确认识，消除其偏见。同时也对我国的司法实践 提供一些合理化的意见。 关键词：利益衡量 类推思维 对赌协议 Abstract VAM agreement is an effective tool for companies to obtain equity financing funds. In practice, many companies through the use of various forms of VAM successfully gained equity financing funds. However, in the case of Haifu Investment Co. v. Gansu Shiheng Co., which used VAM to accomplish equity financing, domestic Courts at all levels all made different verdicts. Cannot help but wonder, why each judge had made different judgments on the very same case, the differences between verdicts are so great that it is very difficult to maintain the stability and predictability of the legal system. Judging by the VAM agreement signed by Haifu Investment Co. Gansu Shiheng Co., the details of the case is not complicated at all. Since the factual findings of the case is not difficult, there are two mainly causes left of the different verdicts: First, the verdicts made by the Courts based on different legal provisions, it means that the Courts understanding of the law is different; Second, because the VAM agreement is a new thing, the Courts lack a clear understanding of the essential attribute of a VAM agreement, which resulting in prejudice. This paper attempts to analyze the case of Haifu Investment Co. v. Gansu Shiheng Co., and make proper recommendations on how to avoid t