Klagen gegen fehlerhafte Hauptversammlungsbeschlüsse im japanischen Aktienrecht

Abstract

About 95 percent of all companies incorporated in Japan are joint stock corporations.  The large number of stock corporations notwithstanding, frivolous suits for voidance of  shareholder  resolutions  or  for  confirmation  of  a  nullity  of  resolutions  do  not  play  a  significant  role in  daily  Japanese  business  practice. One  reason  for this  positive  outcome is that Japan has long been able to successfully contain these kinds of suits. This  picture stands in stark contrast to the problems in Germany, where neither the legislator  nor the courts have been able to find a convincing  solution for frequent noxious shareholder suits.  

If  a  shareholder  resolution  is  not  adopted  in  a  proper  manner,  or  if  its  substance  violates the law or the corporation’s articles of incorporation, the resolution is faulty.  The Japanese stock corporation law, enacted since 2005 in the Companies Act, distinguishes among different types of faulty shareholder resolutions (ketsugi no kaishi) and  corresponding  remedies  (see  Articles  828 et seq.  of the  Companies  Act).  Against  a  “resolution” that does not exist, a suit to confirm the non-existence of the resolution is  available. Against a resolution whose substance violates any laws or regulations, a suit  to confirm the nullity of the resolution may be brought. Third, and of the most practical  importance, a resolution adopted in violation of laws or regulations may be attacked by  a suit for voidance of the resolution.  

As early as 1928, in the course of a major reform of the Commercial Act, the Japanese legislator adopted the concept of a “dismissal of an action based on judicial discretion” to contain frivolous lawsuits. Under this  concept, the court has the power to  dismiss a suit for voidance of a resolution if, after weighing all the details of the case, it  comes to the conclusion that the filing of the suit is frivolous. A corresponding rule is  now enshrined in Article 831 para. 2 of the Companies Act. The preconditions for a dismissal stipulated there are that the facts in violation are not serious and will not affect  the resolution.