Abstract:
با ورود خسارت به شرکت محتمل است که سهامداران آن شرکت نیز از طریق کاهش ارزش سهام و سود آن دچار زیان شوند. این مقاله تلاش دارد با شیوۀ توصیفی و تحلیلی و بهصورت تطبیقی به این پرسش اساسی پاسخ دهد که آیا سهامداران میتوانند بهصورت مستقیم برای زیانهای وارده به خود (که بهنوعی بازتاب زیان وارده به شرکت است) اقدام به طرح دعوا علیه شخص زیانزننده کنند یا خیر؟ نتایج نشان میدهد که در حقوق شرکتهای انگلستان دعوای مستقیم سهامداران برای مطالبۀ زیان بازتابی با وجود قاعدۀ مهم «عدم وجود زیان بازتابی» محدود به موارد استثنایی نظیر استنکاف شرکت از طرح دعوا و هنگامیکه شرکت در نتیجۀ رفتار خوانده قادر به طرح دعوا برای مطالبۀ خسارت خود نیست، شده است. در حقوق شرکتهای ایران نیز با آنکه تردیدهایی در خصوص مطالبۀ خسارت ناشی از کاهش ارزش سهام و سود آن در آرای هیأت داوری بورس و اوراق بهادار وجود دارد، ولی بهنظر میرسد چنین ضرری قابل مطالبه است. البته برخی ملاحظات عملی مانند امکان تعدد دعاوی سهامداران و بحث کارایی (هزینه-فایده) موجب میشود تا علیالاصول شرکت را مقدم در طرح دعوا بدانیم.
interested has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the
diminution the market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution
in dividend, because such a “loss” is merely a reflection of the loss suffered
by the company. The shareholder does not suffer any personal loss. His only
“loss” is through the company, in the diminution in the value of the net
assets of the company. The plaintiff,s shares are merely a right of
participation in the company on the terms of the articles of association . The
share themselves, his right in the participation, are not directly affected by
the wrongdoing . The plaintiff still holds all the shares as his own absolutely
Can a shareholder recover a personal loss resulting from a loss suffered by
the company? Unfortunately, that apparently simple question has no simple
answer. The company lawyer may argue that the answer lies in basic
company law-as a separate legal entity, it is the company itself that must sue
to recoup its own losses. That leaves the shareholder with no cause of action
and no standing to sue. The shareholder derivative action, available under
certain conditions, is still a corporate action, seeking relief for the company
itself. Simply, that means that a shareholder cannot recover damages
suffered by the company. A comparative approach is relevant to this
investigation as it could provide invaluable insights which could enrich
Iranian jurisprudence in case where shareholders will seek to claim for
reflective loss. This article, from a comparative law perspective explores
whether shareholders should be able to claim such a loss which is merely
reflective of the company’s loss. The results of the article show that in the
UK corporate law, the direct action of shareholders to claim a reflective loss
is limited to exceptional cases (such as where the company is unable or
unwilling to pursue the claim) due to the important rule of "no reflective
loss". The origins of the rule come from the decision in Prudential Assurance
v Newman Industries, in which the court said: “what [the shareholder]
cannot do is to recover damages merely because the company in which he is
unencumbered property”.
In the Iranian corporate law, despite the doubts about the claim for damages
resulting from the reduction of shares and its profits in the decisions of the
arbitration board of stock exchange and securities, it seems that such a loss is
compensable. Because on the one hand, by examining the conditions of
compensable loss in Iran's civil liability system, the loss caused by the
diminution in the value of shares and dividends is a personal and
independent loss for the shareholders, and any restriction in this field is a
violation of the rights of the shareholders, and the person causing the loss
must pay all the losses caused for his actions , and on the other hand, the
argument that the shareholder's personal right ought to be subordinated so as
to protect the interests of the company's creditors and the autonomy of
company would seem somewhat less compelling. Ironically, respecting the
principle of company autonomy demands the recognition that shareholders
are separate from the company, which in turn forms the premise upon which
rights and obligations of shareholders are distinguished from those of the
corporate entity. If indeed the shareholder’s right is an independent personal
right, the fact that the loss suffered is reflective of the company's loss should
not lead to a destruction of that right. Of course, some practical
considerations such as the possibility of multiple shareholder lawsuits and
efficiency (cost-benefit evaluation) lead us to consider the company as a
priority in the litigation without limiting the personal right of shareholders to
claim personal loss.