法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
從台鹼案論企業併購者關於土壤及地下水污染整治責任之繼受(Successor Liability in Mergers and Acquisitions for Soil and Underground Water Pollution Remediation - From the Perspective of the Tai - Chien Case)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 吳淑莉
出版日期: 2010.06
刊登出處: 台灣/臺北大學法學論叢第 74 期/1-44 頁
頁  數: 44 點閱次數: 2741
下載點數: 176 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺北大學法律學院 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 土污法整治責任合併資產收購無繼受者責任事實上合併營業之繼續實質繼續性產品線原則
中文摘要: 我國土污法對企業進行併購後,後繼公司是否應繼受先前公司因土壤及地下水污染應負之排除污染責任,並未有具體規定,而最高行政法院於台鹼公司安順廠污染事件之判決中,適用公司法,依據合併之法律效果,「權利義務之概括承受」原理,課予後繼公司繼受先前公司依土污法所應負之排除污染責任,惟適用公司法解決土壤及地下水污染之公平性有其可議之處。另若收購公司僅購買賣方公司之資產,而依資產收購之法律效果,收購公司則無須繼受賣方公司之債務與責任,然而實務上可能產生的問題則是,收購公司可能假資產收購之名,行合併之實,逃避整治責任。關於整治責任人可能利用公司併購型態,逃避整治責任,導致土污法無法達成整治之目的,雖然美國 CERCLA 對整治責任之繼受亦無明文,但法院的判例已表達相當程度的見解,因此本文將對該相關判例做深入探討,著重美國傳統公司法中資產收購「無繼受者責任」四個例外,與新發展之「實質繼續性」以及「產品線責任」例外,檢視資產收購後繼公司是否繼受先前公司之整治責任,希冀尋出合宜之因應措施,供我國未來修法之參考。
英文關鍵詞: Soil and Underground Water Pollution Remediation ActCERCLACleanups liabilityMergersAsset acquisitionsSuccessor’s nonliabilityDe facto mergerMere continuationSubstantial continuityProduct line doctrine
英文摘要: With the enactment of “ Soil and Underground Water Pollution Remediation Act ” ( “ the Act ” ), the most prominent goals set forth include the cleanup of hazardous waste disposal sites and the imposition of liability for the costs of remedying hazardous conditions on the parties responsible for creating or contributing to such conditions. The Act, however, does not expressly impose liability on the corporate successors of these responsible parties for costs associated with their predecessors’ hazardous waste operations. Consequently, an important issue concerning reach of the Act is to what extent courts will hold corporate successors in mergers and acquisitions liable for the remediation costs at a waste site where the successors’ only connection is through their predecessors.
Despite the failure to explicitly provide for corporate successor liability in the Act, the courts in the case of Tai-Chien have held that general corporate law should determine successor liability under the Act. Therefore, as the corporate successor in the merger transaction, China Petrochemical Development Corporation ( “ CPDC ” ) succeeds to the liabilities of the predecessor’s cleanup cost. By contrast, a corporation that purchases all or substantially all of the assets of another corporation generally does not assume the predecessor's cleanup cost liabilities of the selling corporation. Accordingly, acquisitions may be structured as asset purchases rather than mergers or stock purchases even where virtually the entire business is being acquired.
The general rule of non-liability for asset purchasers has the potential for abuse, in that legitimate claims against the seller could be effectively eliminated through the legal formalities of an asset sale. In fact, American courts have used their equitable powers to create four traditional and widely recognized, judicially created exceptions to the rule of non-liability for asset purchasers: ( 1 ) the purchaser of assets expressly or impliedly agrees to assume obligations of the seller; ( 2 ) the transaction is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability; ( 3 ) the transaction amounts to a de facto merger; or ( 4 ) the purchaser’s business is a mere continuation of the seller’s business.
Recognizing the limited nature of the traditional exceptions to the rule of nonliability in asset acquisitions, several American courts have adopted liberalized successor liability principles. Some courts have broadened the mere continuation and de facto merger exceptions by eliminating the requirement of shareholder continuity and focusing instead on the continuity of the predecessor’s basic business operations. Other courts have imposed liability where the successor continues its predecessor’s product line.
Since these exceptions created by American courts are rooted in equity, this article proposes the adoption of some of the exceptions to the rule of non-liability for asset purchasers in the context of the environmental cleanups liability under the Act. It is not recommended, however, that we continue to press for the adoption of the more expansive rules adopted by a minority of states to reach any successor that essentially continues the same enterprise or product line as the predecessor.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、台鹼公司安順廠污染事件之判決
參、我國土污法之重要內容
肆、企業併購後土壤及地下水污染整治責任之歸屬
一、我國法有關企業合併後土壤及地下水污染整治責任之歸屬
(一)適用「權利義務之概括承受」歸屬整治責任之法理爭議
(二)評台鹼案判決適用公司法歸屬土壤及地下水污染整治責任
(三)小結
二、我國法有關資產收購後土壤及地下水整治責任之歸屬
伍、美國 CERCLA 之污染責任人及其範圍
陸、美國法制企業併購後 CERCLA 整治責任之歸屬
一、傳統資產收購「無繼受者責任」之例外
二、現代資產收購「無繼受者責任」之例外
(一)「實質繼續性」
(二)「產品線原則」
三、小結
柒、美國資產收購「無繼受者責任」例外於我國法之解析
捌、結論及建議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
吳淑莉,從台鹼案論企業併購者關於土壤及地下水污染整治責任之繼受,臺北大學法學論叢,第 74 期,1-44 頁,2010年06月。
返回功能列