*-+Chapter 2THE CORPORATE FORM公司设立I. WHERE AND HOW TO INCORPORATE设立地点、方法A. Delaware vs. headquarter state: The incorporators mustchoose between incorporating in their headquarter state, or incorporating somewhere else (probably Delaware). [13]1. Closely held（非上市公司？这两个术语我也不是很确定，差不多是这意思吧）: For a closely held corporation,incorporation should usually take place in the statewhere the corporation’s principal place of business主营业地is located. [14]2. Publicly held（上市公司？）: But for a publicly heldcorporation, incorporation in Delaware is usually veryattractive (because of Delaware’s well-defined,predictable, body of law, and its slightpro-management bias.) [14]I.公司设立A．在公司总部所在地设立或其他地方1、非上市公司的设立一般都在公司主营业所在地2、上市公司在特拉华州设立具有很大优势。
B．公司设立机制1、公司章程，成立一个公司创立人需要起草公司章程a.修订，章程可以随时被修订，需经因修订权利受损股东的多数票通过。
1、发起人在明知公司为成立，而以公司名义与他人订立合同的，需要对所订立的合同承担责任。
a.公司没能成立或随后即解散，发起人要承担合同责任b．公司成立后，表示接受发起人订立的合同的，则合同责任转移到公司B. Mechanics of incorporating公司设立机制:1. Articles of incorporation公司章程: To form a corporation, the incorporators file a document with the Secretary of State. This document is usually called the "articles of incorporation"or the "charter." [15]a. Amending修订: The articles can be amended atany time after filing. However, any class ofstockholders who would be adversely affected bythe amendment must approve the amendment bymajority vote. See, e.g., RMBCA ?have generallyeliminated the ultra vires doctrine. See, e.g.,RMBCA > is one who takes initiative infounding and organizing a corporation. Apromoter发起人、创办人may occasionally beliable for debts he contracts on behalf of theto-be formed corporation. [22]1. Promoter aware, other party not: If thepromoter enters into a contract in thecorporation’s name, and the promoterknows that the corporation has not yetbeen formed (but the other party does notknow this), the promoter will be liableunder the contract. See RMBCA示范商业公司法修订案t finds to be the parties’intent. [25]a. Never formed, or immediatelydefaults公司没能成立或随后即解散:If the corporation is never formed,or is formed but then immediatelydefaults, the promoter willprobably be liable.b. Formed and then adopts: But ifthe corporation is formed, and thenshows its intent to take over thecontract (i.e., "adopts" thecontract), then the court may findthat both parties intended that thepromoter be released from liability(a "novation").B. Liability of corporation公司责任: If thecorporation did not exist at the time thepromoter signed a contract on its behalf, thecorporation will not become liable unless it"adopts"the contract. Adoption may be implied.(Example: The corporation receives benefitsunder the contract, without objecting to them.The corporation will be deemed to haveimplicitly adopted the contract, making itliable and perhaps making the promoter no longerliable.) [26]C. Promoter’s fiduciary obligation发起人的信托责任: During the pre-incorporation period,the promoter has a fiduciary obligation to theto-be-formed corporation. He therefore may notpursue his own profit at the corporation’sultimate expense. (Example: The promoter may notsell the corporation property at a grosslyinflated price.) [27]B．公司责任，在公司尚未成立时，发起人以公司名义订立的合同，除非公司后来接受了合同，否则公司不承担责任C.发起人的信托责任，在公司的设立阶段，发起人对公司承担负有信托义务。
IV. DEFECTIVE INCORPORATION 设立有瑕疵A. Common law "de facto事实上、实际上" doctrine:At common law, if a person made a "colorable"attempt to incorporate (e.g., he submittedarticles to the Secretary of State, which wererejected), a "de facto" corporation would befound to have been formed. This would be enoughto shelter the would-be incorporator from thepersonal liability that would otherwise result.This is the "de facto corporation" doctrine.[29]1. Modern view现代观点: But today, moststates have abolished the de factodoctrine, and expressly impose personalliability on anyone who purports to dobusiness as a corporation while knowingthat incorporation has not occurred. SeeRMBCA s a judge-made doctrine.IV.设立有瑕疵A．习惯法上的事实原则，虽然公司的设立存在瑕疵，未获批准，但根据事实原则，可以认定已存在事实公司，而不是发起人不再需要对外承担责任。
1、现代观点，如今大多数的州已经废除了事实原则，也就是由个人来承担责任。
V. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL 揭开法人面纱A. Generally概述: In a few very extreme cases,courts may "pierce the corporate veil,"and holdsome or all of the shareholders personallyliable for the corporation’s debts. [33]B. Individual shareholders个人股东: If thecorporation’s shares are held by individuals,here are some factors that courts look to indeciding whether to pierce the corporate veil:[33]1. Tort民事侵权行为 vs. contract("voluntary creditor"): Courts are morelikely to pierce the veil in a tort case(where the creditor is "involuntary")than in a contract case (where thecreditor is "voluntary"). [34]2. Fraud欺诈: Veil piercing is morelikely where there has been a grievousfraud or wrongdoing by the shareholders(e.g., the sole shareholder siphons outall profits, leaving the corporationwithout enough money to pay its claims).[35]3. Inadequate capitalization资本投入不足: Most important, veil piercing is most likely if the corporation has been inadequately capitalized. But most courts do not make inadequate capitalization alone enough for veil piercing. [35]a. Zero capital零投资: When theshareholder invests no moneywhatsoever in the corporation,courts are especially likely topierce the veil, and may requireless of a showing on the otherfactors than if the capitalizationwas inadequate but non-zero.b. Siphoning利润转移:Capitalization may be inadequateeither because there is not enoughinitial capital创办资本, orbecause the corporation’s profitsare systematically siphoned out asearned. But if capitalization isadequate, and the corporation thenhas unexpected liabilities, theshareholders’ failure to put inadditional capital will generallynot be inadequate capitalization.4. Failure of formalities没有遵循法人经营程序: Lastly, the court is more likely to pierce the veil if the shareholders have failed to follow corporate formalities in running the business. (Example: Shares are never formally issued, directors’ mee tings are not held, shareholders co-mingle personal and company funds.)[39]5. Summary总结: In nearly all cases at least two of the above four factors must be present for the court to pierce the veil; the most common combination is probably inadequate capitalization plus failure to follow corporate formalities.V.揭开法人面纱A．概述，在少数情况下，法院会认定由股东个人而非公司承担民事责任，即所谓的“揭开法人面纱”B．股东为个人，在以下几种情况，法院会1、民事侵权中更易认定股东个人承担责任2、股东实施的欺诈行为很有可能被判定为个人承担责任3、当公司的资本投入不足，容易认定个人承担责任a.零投资，股东对公司的投资为零时，通常公司的人格会被否定b.利润转移4、没有遵循法人经营程序5、总结，在以上所有的单一情况下，法院并不会否定公司的人格制度。