一、公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保一般規(guī)則

I． General rules for company’s external security

（一）公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保有公司適格決議的，公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保有效

i. A company’s external security shall be effective with appropriate resolution

根據(jù)《中華人民共和國(guó)i公司法》（“《公司法》”）第16條的規(guī)定，公司向他人提供擔(dān)保，依章程規(guī)定，必X經(jīng)董事會(huì)或者股東會(huì)、股東大會(huì)決定。公司向股東或?qū)嶋H控制人提供擔(dān)保，必X經(jīng)股東會(huì)或者股東大會(huì)決定。如果公司經(jīng)上述程序取得同意對(duì)外擔(dān)保的決議，且無(wú)其他影響合同效力的情形，則公司的對(duì)外擔(dān)保有效，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的擔(dān)保責(zé)任。

According to Article 16 of Company Law of the People's Republic of China ii (the “Company Law”), if a company provides security for others, a resolution passed by the board of directors, or the board of shareholders, or general meeting shall be required. In the case of a company providing security for its shareholder or its actual controlling party, the resolution shall be adopted by the board of shareholders or general meeting only. The external security of a company shall be binding if it goes through the process set above and there is no other condition that affects the validity of the security contract, and the company shall bear the corresponding security liability thereof.

若公司不存在董事會(huì)而僅設(shè)一名執(zhí)行董事，且公司章程規(guī)定由執(zhí)行董事而非股東會(huì)決定對(duì)外擔(dān)保事務(wù)，則執(zhí)行董事一人的簽名即相當(dāng)于董事會(huì)同意對(duì)外擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)的決議。Z高人民法院（“Z高院”）認(rèn)為，如該執(zhí)行董事同時(shí)為公司法定代表人，則其仍需以執(zhí)行董事身份另行簽字，否則不能認(rèn)為具有相當(dāng)于董事會(huì)決議的效果。iii

In case of a company with an executive director instead of a board of directors with special regulations stipulated in the Articles of Association that external security related matters shall be decided by the executive director, the signature of him to approve the external security shall be deemed as a resolution of the board of directors. Moreover, the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (the “SPC”) held that if the executive director is also the legal representative of the company, he shall sign as the executive director specially to approve the external security, otherwise the signature of him as legal representative on the security contract shall not be deemed as the resolution of a board of directors to approve the external security.iv

（二）公司決議不適格或系偽Z變?cè)斓?，?dāng)相對(duì)人善意時(shí)公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保有效

ii. Where the resolution is ineligible, or forged, or altered, the external security shall still be effective if the counterparty is in good faith

在判斷相對(duì)人是否善意時(shí)，需要注意把握好如下問(wèn)題：

We should attend to the following problems to decide whether the counterparty is in good faith:

1. 法院是否應(yīng)當(dāng)主動(dòng)審查相對(duì)人是否善意

(i) Whether the court should take initiative to examine the counterparty in good faith.

Z高人民法院認(rèn)為，債權(quán)人在簽訂擔(dān)保合同時(shí)是否善意屬于基本事實(shí)，無(wú)論是否有人提出相應(yīng)抗辯都應(yīng)當(dāng)予以查明。v

The SPC held that whether the creditor (that is, the counterparty) was in good faith while signing the security contract was a fundamental fact and shall be ascertained even if no party raise the corresponding defense. vi

2. 誰(shuí)負(fù)有證明相對(duì)人善意的舉證責(zé)任

(ii) Which party shall bear the burden of proof.

《Z高人民法院關(guān)于適用《中華人民共和國(guó)民法典》有關(guān)擔(dān)保制度的解釋》（“《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》”）第7條第3款規(guī)定，“相對(duì)人有證據(jù)證明已對(duì)公司決議進(jìn)行了合理審查”時(shí)為善意。因此，相對(duì)人需要提供證據(jù)證明自己為善意。

Article 7.3 of the Interpretation of Supreme People's Court on Application of the Security System under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (the “Interpretation”) provides that a counterparty is in good faith if he “has evidence to prove that he has reasonably examined the resolution of the company”. Therefore, the counterparty bear the burden of proof in this case.

3. 相對(duì)人對(duì)決議的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

(iii) Standard of counterparty’s examination on the resolution.

《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》雖然使用了“合理審查”，但“合理審查”也僅X于形式審查。也即只要做出決議的機(jī)關(guān)符合法律和公司章程的規(guī)定，股東或董事的身份和人數(shù)與相關(guān)地方市場(chǎng)監(jiān)督管理局記載相符，在關(guān)聯(lián)擔(dān)保中無(wú)表決權(quán)的股東未參與表決，則可以認(rèn)為相對(duì)人進(jìn)行了合理審查。公司不能以決議系偽Z或變?cè)?、決議程序違法、簽名或簽章不實(shí)等理由認(rèn)為相對(duì)人非善意，除非有證據(jù)證明相對(duì)人知曉相應(yīng)情況。

Although the Interpretation used the word ‘reasonably examined’, it is still limited to formal examination. The counterparty shall be deemed to fulfill his obligation of examination as long as the entity that resolved conforms to company’s articles of association, the identity and the number of the director(s) or shareholder(s) is consistent with the registration at relevant local Administration for Market Regulation, and the shareholders without voting right did not vote. The company cannot claim that the counterparty is not in good faith by reasons such as the resolution is forged or altered, the process of resolution is illegal, or the signature on it is not true, unless it can prove the counterparty has known of the situation aforesaid.

4. 相對(duì)人善意與否的法律后果

(iv) Legal consequence of whether the counterparty is in good faith.

若相對(duì)人善意，則公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保有效，公司承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任，但公司可以要求越權(quán)擔(dān)保的法定代表人賠償相應(yīng)的損失。若相對(duì)人非善意，則擔(dān)保合同對(duì)公司不發(fā)生效力，但相對(duì)人可以根據(jù)《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》第17條要求公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

If the counterparty is in good faith, the company’s external security is valid and shall bear the corresponding security liability. After that, the company may claim for indemnification to its legal representative who exceeded his authority to provide security. For the counterparty not in good faith, the security contract is void and the counterparty may claim the company at fault for compensate under Article 17 of the Interpretation.

（三）公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保無(wú)決議，公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保無(wú)效

iii. A company’s external security is null and void without appropriate resolution

如無(wú)公司決議，則相對(duì)人當(dāng)然地未履行審查決議的義務(wù)，因而無(wú)法主張自己善意，則擔(dān)保合同對(duì)公司不發(fā)生效力，公司無(wú)需承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任。有的相對(duì)人提出，其雖未現(xiàn)實(shí)審查決議，但公司在擔(dān)保合同中做了存在適格決議的陳述與保證，并以此要求公司承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任。在此種情形下，相對(duì)人未履行其審查公司決議的法定義務(wù)，輕信公司所做的陳述與保證，從維護(hù)法秩序和保護(hù)公司的角度出發(fā)，仍然認(rèn)為其為非善意，擔(dān)保合同對(duì)公司不發(fā)生效力。但相對(duì)人仍可以根據(jù)《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》第17條要求公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

It is for sure that the counterparty failed his obligation of reasonable examination if the company has no resolution on external security, therefore the security contract is not binding and the company has no security liability in this case. Some counterparty may argue that the representations and warranties made by company in the security contract including an eligible resolution and ask the company to bear security liability accordingly. Under the circumstances that the counterparty is gullible on representations and warranties clauses in the security contract without examination on the resolution, for protection of the legal order, the SPC consider the representations and warranties are inadequate to prove counterparty’s good faith if he did not fulfill the reasonable examination obligation. However, the liability for compensation provided by Article 17 of the Interpretation shall still apply.

（四）“公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保無(wú)決議而無(wú)效”的例外

iv. Exceptions for section I pointed in chapter iii.

《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》第8條規(guī)定了三種即使公司無(wú)相應(yīng)決議，其對(duì)外提供的擔(dān)保也有效的例外情形。分別為：（1）金融機(jī)構(gòu)開(kāi)立保函或者擔(dān)保公司提供擔(dān)保；（2）公司為其全資子公司開(kāi)展經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)提供擔(dān)保；（3）對(duì)外擔(dān)保合同系由單獨(dú)或者共同持有公司三分之二以上對(duì)擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)有表決權(quán)的股東簽字同意。但上市公司、國(guó)有獨(dú)資公司不適用其中第（2）、（3）項(xiàng)規(guī)定。

Article 8 of the Interpretation provided three exceptions in which a company’s external security is still valid disregard of the lack of the resolution: (a) letter of guarantee issued by a financial institution, or the security provided by a security company; (b) security provided by a company to its wholly-owned subsidiary; or (c) security contract signed by company’s shareholder(s) who separately or jointly hold two-thirds or more of voting rights with regard to security matters. It needs to be noted that aforesaid items (b) and (c) shall not apply when a listed company or a wholly state-owned company provides security.

二、公司分支機(jī)構(gòu)擔(dān)保規(guī)則及其例外

II.  Rules and exceptions on external security provided by company’s branch

公司的分支機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保，未經(jīng)公司股東（大）會(huì)或者董事會(huì)決議、授權(quán)，相對(duì)人善意的，公司或其分支機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任；相對(duì)人非善意的，公司或其分支機(jī)構(gòu)依據(jù)《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》第17條承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

Resolution passed by the board of directors, or the board of shareholders, or general meeting is also required for a company’s branch to make an external security. If there is no resolution and the counterparty is in good faith, the company or its branch still shall bear the security liability. While there is no resolution and the counterparty is not in good faith, the company or its branch may bear liability for compensation provided in Article 17 of the Interpretation.

此外，金融機(jī)構(gòu)的分支機(jī)構(gòu)超越其營(yíng)業(yè)執(zhí)照營(yíng)業(yè)范圍且未獲得有權(quán)從事?lián)I(yè)務(wù)的上級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)授權(quán)開(kāi)立保函，或者未經(jīng)金融機(jī)構(gòu)股東（大）會(huì)或者董事會(huì)決議、授權(quán)從事保函之外的其他擔(dān)保業(yè)務(wù)，相對(duì)人善意的，金融機(jī)構(gòu)或其分支機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任；

Besides, the financial institution and/or its branch shall also assume security liability to counterparty with good faith when (a)the letter of guarantee is issued by its branch even the branch exceeds its business scope registered in business license and is not authorized by the financial institution; or (b)the branch provides other security without resolution and permission of the board of directors or the board of shareholders or general meeting of the financial institution.

擔(dān)保公司的分支機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保，未經(jīng)擔(dān)保公司授權(quán)，相對(duì)人善意的，擔(dān)保公司應(yīng)承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任。

Where the counterparty is in good faith, the security company shall bear corresponding security liability when its branch provides security without its permission.

三、上市公司擔(dān)保規(guī)則及其例外

III.  Rules and exceptions on external security provided by listed company

（一）擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)須經(jīng)公告，上市公司擔(dān)保合同方始生效

i. Security contract signed by listed company is not binding until disclosed

與一般公司不同，相對(duì)人必X根據(jù)公司已通過(guò)擔(dān)保決議的公告與上市公司簽訂擔(dān)保合同，擔(dān)保合同方始對(duì)上市公司生效。如果相對(duì)人僅憑借上市公司的決議而未憑借相應(yīng)公告，則擔(dān)保合同對(duì)上市公司不生效。

Unlike general companies (that is, non-listed companies), the counterparty shall sign the security contract in accordance with the announcement disclosed by the listed company stating that the security matter has been adopted by the resolution of the board of directors or the shareholders' general meeting. The security contract is not binding on the company if the counterparty only relies on the resolution rather than the disclosure announcement.

（二）相對(duì)人審查公告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

ii. Standard of counterparty’s examination on listed company announcement

相對(duì)人審查上市公司公告Z主要的幾個(gè)內(nèi)容包括：被擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)是否已經(jīng)董事會(huì)或者股東大會(huì)決議通過(guò)的信息；被擔(dān)保人也即主債務(wù)人的身份；為主債務(wù)人擔(dān)保的金額。在此應(yīng)當(dāng)特別注意，公告中必X包含被擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)是否已經(jīng)董事會(huì)或者股東大會(huì)決議通過(guò)的信息，如果只有擔(dān)保事項(xiàng)的信息而無(wú)決議信息，仍然不符合本條的要求。與此同時(shí)，在已有相應(yīng)公告的情況下，相對(duì)人無(wú)需再審查上市公司的章程。vii

The counterparty should examine the following contents of the announcement: (a)whether the security is permitted by the board of directors or the shareholders' general meeting; (b)identity of the debtor; (c)amount of the security. Most noteworthy is that the announcement must entail whether the security is permitted by the board of director or the shareholder’s general meeting. Only with the information of the security matter is not sufficient to make the contract binding. In the meantime, the counterparty does not need to examine company’s articles of association with the existence of the announcement.viii

（三）上市公司擔(dān)保規(guī)則適用的對(duì)象

iii. Entities to whom the previous rules apply

首先，該規(guī)則適用于上市公司及上市公司已公開(kāi)披露的控股子公司。需要注意的是，上市公司已公開(kāi)披露的控股子公司對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保的，通常只需子公司（而無(wú)需上市公司）作出決議，上市公司僅就此發(fā)布公告即可。

Firstly, the rules apply to listed companies and their disclosed holding subsidiaries. It should be noted that the resolution shall be made by the subsidiary if the subsidiary intends to provide security to external and the listed company only need to issue an announcement regarding the security matter.

其次，該規(guī)則適用于在中國(guó)主板、創(chuàng)業(yè)板、中小板和新三板上市的公司，并不適用于境外注冊(cè)、境外上市的公司。但境內(nèi)注冊(cè)、境外上市或境內(nèi)外均上市的公司是否適用本規(guī)則，Z高人民法院的態(tài)度仍不清晰，有待觀察。

Secondly, the rules apply to companies listed in the Main Board, the GEM, the SMEs Board and the new OTC Market. The rules do not apply to companies registered and listed abroad. However, the SPC has not yet declared clearly if these rules apply to domestic companies listed overseas or listed both domestic and overseas.

（四）上市公司擔(dān)保無(wú)效的后果

iv. Legal consequence of invalid security provided by listed companies

與一般公司擔(dān)保無(wú)效后責(zé)任分配不同，如相對(duì)人未憑相應(yīng)公告簽訂擔(dān)保合同，上市公司既不承擔(dān)擔(dān)保責(zé)任又不承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。也即，即使上市公司存在過(guò)錯(cuò)，也不承擔(dān)責(zé)任。該規(guī)則是《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》新創(chuàng)制的，在此之前，在擔(dān)保合同無(wú)效時(shí)，上市公司與一般公司承擔(dān)的責(zé)任并無(wú)區(qū)別。根據(jù)法不溯及既往原則，為保護(hù)相對(duì)人的信賴(lài)?yán)?，本?guī)則僅適用于《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》生效之日，即2021年1月1日以后發(fā)生的擔(dān)保行為。因此，如上市公司在2021年1月1日前與相對(duì)人簽訂的擔(dān)保合同無(wú)效，如有過(guò)錯(cuò)仍應(yīng)根據(jù)《民法典擔(dān)保制度解釋》第17條承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

Unlike allocation of liability in general company, the listed company shall neither bear security liability nor do they bear liability for compensation, even if there is a fault of the listed company in the case of invalid security. This is a new rule established by the Interpretation. Before that, there is no difference in allocation of liability between listed companies and general companies under such circumstances. According to the principle of non-retroactivity of law and to protect the reliance interest of the counterparty, the rules established by the Interpretation shall only apply to security matters that occur after the Interpretation takes into effect, that is 1st January 2021. Therefore, if the security contract signed by a listed company before that date is not binding, it shall still bear liability for compensation according to the laws and regulations at that time.

免責(zé)聲明

本文僅作一般參考之用，在任何情況下不構(gòu)成任何法律建議并不具有指導(dǎo)作用。若計(jì)劃依據(jù)本文任何內(nèi)容采取行動(dòng)之前，應(yīng)當(dāng)先征詢(xún)法律Z業(yè)人士的具體法律建議。

Disclaimer

This article has been prepared for general reference purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice or regarded as a substitute for detailed advice in individual cases. Readers should seek specific legal advice from legal professionals before acting with regard to anything contained in this article.