The cumulative voting system may not be able to achieve the purpose of ensuring that minority shareholders enter the management class. Powered by GliaStudio In addition, the voting rights binding contract is similar in substance to shareholders’ solicitation of power of attorney in order to support specific proposals and candidates. Since the current system allows shareholders to solicit power of attorney (Article 177 of the Company Law, Article 25-1 of the Securities and Exchange Law ), it should not be It is absolutely denied that voting rights are bound to contracts, otherwise there will be conflicts within the legal system.
The case was appealed to the court of telemarketing list second instance ( Civil Judgment No. 621 of the High Court of Taiwan in 105 ), and the situation changed again. The court of second instance directly determined that the contract at issue was not a voting rights-binding contract as referred to in the Supreme Court's opinion, because the contract in question did not. There is no record of how the Ministry of Finance should exercise its voting rights over Changyin's shares on specific matters, and the disputed agreement is just a general contract.
Furthermore, even if it is believed that the contract at issue is indeed a voting rights-binding contract, since the current Company Law, Article 356-9, paragraph 1, and the Enterprise Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Article 10, paragraph 1 both recognize the validity of the voting rights-binding contract between shareholders within a certain range , it can be seen that the legislative trend should be allowed, so the court believes that the disputed agreement is valid. The Ministry of Finance refused to accept the judgment of the second instance and appealed to the Supreme Court ( Civil Judgment No. 2329, Taishang Zi No.