双语|股票期权争议相关法律问题研究（下）

双语|股票期权争议相关法律问题研究（下）
Research on Legal Issues Related to Stock Options Disputes(Part Ⅱ)

三、股票期权争议的常见形式及司法层面的不同处理模式
Common manifestations of stock optiondisputes and different processing modes at the judicial level

（一）股票期权争议的常见表现形式
Common types of stock option disputes

看似美好的股票期权激励计划在具体的实施过程中，也会产生一些争议或者问题，就这些争议类型，我们总结了四类，具体如下：There will also be some disputes or problems in the implementation processof the seemingly beautiful stock option incentive plan. Regarding these disputetypes, we have summarized four categories, as follows:

1、股票期权争议的表现形式之一
The first type of dispute of stock option

由于股票期权的总体数量有限，股票期权激励计划不可能对全员实施，它通常只是激励核心人员或者突出贡献人员。没有获得股票期权的员工可能会主张同工同酬，希望自己也可以获得相应的股票期权。北京青年报2000年8月份做过一篇这样的报道 “国内首例股票期权纠纷案的背后”，当时的报道中，某员工认为他应该获得股票期权奖励，但是没有被授予；然后他要求同样的被授予一定数量的股票期权。仲裁委没有受理这起案件，理由是股票期权争议不属于劳动争议受理范围；但是即使是仲裁委立案受理了，这种诉求基本上也不会得到支持，因为即使把股票期权视为一种劳动报酬，这也是工资以外的一种额外奖励。对这种奖励，期权计划实施者是有相当程度的自主权的；授予谁、不授予谁，员工是没有权利去干涉或者提出异议的。
The total number of stock option is limited, stock option incentive plancannot be implemented for all employees. It usually only motivates corepersonnel or outstanding contributors in the company. Employees who have notobtained stock options may claim equal pay for the same work and hope that theycan also obtain stock options. The Beijing Youth Daily did a report in August2000 which named “Behind the First Domestic Stock Options Dispute Case”. Accordingto the report, an employee held the view that he deserved a stock option awardbut was not granted. Then he asked for the company to grant him a certainnumber of stock options. The arbitration commission did not accept this case onthe  grounds of labor dispute, becausethey held that stock option disputes is not within the scope of labor dispute;however, even if the arbitration commission has accepted the case, such claimswill not be supported basically, because even if stock options are consideredto be a labor remuneration, which is just an additional reward in addition towages. For such rewards, the implementers of the option plan have aconsiderable degree of autonomy: to whom is granted or not granted, employeeshave no right to interfere or raise objections.

2、股票期权争议的表现形式之二
The second type of dispute of stock option

实践中，员工离职时能否要求兑现未归属的股票期权也会成为一个问题。通常而言法院一般不会支持员工的此种权利主张。因为如果在行权之前双方有关于归属的期限和条件的约定，基本上法院会尊重此类约定，如果员工在股票期权归属之前离职的，未归属的股票期权自动作废。除非有的时候员工并非主动离职，而是被用人单位违法辞退。在这种情况下，如果用人单位确实是违法解除了劳动合同，可能会被视为用人单位不当的阻却了归属条件的成就，此时用人单位可能要承担不利后果；因为按照合同法的基本理论，如不当阻却了条件成就，视同条件成就。
In practice, it is also an issue whether employees can demand theredemption of unvested stock options when they leave the company. Generallyspeaking, the court do not support such claims of employees. Because if the twoparties have agreed on certain terms and conditions of vesting before exercise,usually the court will respect such an agreement. If the employee leaves companybefore vesting of the stock options, the unvested stock options will beautomatically void. Unless when employees do not voluntarily resign, but aredismissed illegally by employers. In this case, if the employer does terminatethe labor contract illegally, it may be considered that the employer improperlyblocked the achievement of the vesting conditions. At this time, the employermay have to bear adverse consequences, because according to the basic theory ofcontract law, if conditional achievements are improperly blocked, they aretreated as conditional achievements.

3、股票期权争议的表现形式之三
The third type of dispute of stock option

更为常见的纠纷会涉及员工已经归属的股票期权的行权问题。对于已经归属的股票期权，期权计划实施者可能也会终止被授予方的行权资格。这就主要看股票期权授予计划里面对于股票期权行权要件的实体性规定。比如，员工有没有严重违纪的行为？有没有损害特定主体利益的行为？有没有违反竞业限制义务？有没有违反招揽义务等等。通过案例检索发现，此类纠纷在目前也是全国范围内涉及股票期权争议最常见的一类纠纷。
More common disputes involve the exercise of options that employees havevested. For stock options which have been vested, the implementer of the optionplan may also terminate the exercise of the grantee. This mainly depends on thesubstantive provisions on stock option exercise requirements in the stockoption grant plan. For example, are there any serious violations of disciplineby employees? Is there any behavior that harms the interests of specificsubjects? Have the employees breached his non-competition obligation? Is thereany breach of solicitation obligations and so on. According to the conclusionof the legal research, we have found that such disputes are the most commontype of disputes involving stock options disputes nationwide.

4、股票期权争议的表现形式之四
The fourth type of dispute of stock option

第四类纠纷则是用人单位针对员工发起了法律行动。比如说因为员工在离职后违反了竞业限制义务或者招揽义务，或者员工离职行为本身就违反了服务期约定，用人单位要求追究其违约责任。此时，用人单位可能会要求员工返还行使股票期权所带来的收益并承担其他违约责任。
The fourth type of dispute is that the employer initiated a legal action againstthe employee. For example, employee violates the non-competition obligation orsolicitation obligations after leaving company, or the employee's departure violatesservice period agreement, the employer requires that the employee should be liablefor breach of contract. At this point, the employer may require employees toreturn the proceeds from exercising stock options and bear other liabilitiesfor breach of contract.

（二）司法层面对股票期权争议的不同处理模式Different types of processing modes for stock options disputes on theground of judicial level

除去当事人按照期权协议的约定，选择境内外的商事仲裁机构管辖以外（因仲裁保密性要求，针对此类案件的法律研究工作存在困难），从全国的层面来看，针对股票期权争议的司法处理模式主要有三种，一种是合同纠纷的处理模式，一种是证券纠纷的处理模式，还有一种就是劳动争议的处理模式。
In addition to the parties' choice of domestic and foreign commercialarbitration agencies in accordance with the options agreement (due to theconfidentiality requirements of arbitration, legal research work in such casesis difficult), from a national perspective, there are three main modes for thejudicial treatment of stock option disputes: the contract dispute settlementmode, the securities dispute settlement mode, and the labor dispute settlementmode.

1、合同纠纷处理模式
Processing Mode as Contract Dispute

例如钱丽梅与北京慧聪国际咨询有限公司合同纠纷案[sup][1][/sup]中，该公司曾经向员工出具过一份购股权授予通知书，里面约定了一些与股票期权相关的权利义务，并且约定了授予员工一定数额的境外公司的股票期权，员工离职之后就向境内公司申请行权，但是遭到了拒绝，拒绝的理由是按照境外公司的《招股章程》规定，购股权于终止受聘日期失效且不可行使。
For instance, in a contract dispute case between Qian Limei and Beijing HuiCong International Consulting Co., Ltd. The company issued a call option grantnotice to the employee, stipulating rights and obligations relevant to the stockoptions and the grant of a certain amount of stock options to the employee forthe offshore company, later the employee applied to the onshore company for theexercise of the options after resignation from the company but was rejected.The grounds for the rejection were that the call option became invalid and inexecutableas of the termination hire date according to the “Prospectus” of the offshorecompany.

之后员工起诉要求境内公司按照购股权授予通知书的约定保障行权资格，或者赔偿损失。法院最后认定，《招股章程》的发布主体并非境内公司，且境内公司出具的《购股权授予通知书》中未载明购股权的行使需要受《招股章程》的限制，所以境内公司应该为员工安排行权；并在行权不能时，按照员工申请行权之日的股价、扣除员工应当支付的购股款，赔偿员工损失。
Thereafter, the employee sued to require the domestic company to guaranteethe exercise qualification pursuant as the agreement in the Notice of OptionPurchase Grant or to compensate for the loss. The court finally held that theissuing party of the “Prospectus” is not the domestic company, and the “Noticeof Option Purchase Grant” issued by the domestic company did not state that theexercise of option purchase shall be subject to the restriction of the“Prospectus”, therefore the domestic company shall arrange the exercise for theemployees; and if the employees cannot exercise their options, the domesticcompany shall, compensate the employees for their losses on the basis of theshare price on the application date of such employees, deducting the paymentfor shares that shall be paid by such employees.

这个案例其实是确立了两个裁判观点。第一个裁判观点即期权协议具有相对性，未在期权协议中体现的第三方协议或者条款，不得约束期权协议的当事人；第二个裁判观点是，如果无法保障员工行使股票期权，则需要赔偿员工实际损失；就上市公司的股票期权而言，首先判断出股票期权所对应的公开发行的股票的数量，之后按照行权日的股票价格减去股票期权的行权价格，得出员工的实际损失数额。值得一提的是，法院在认定赔偿损失数额之时，不会考虑税务问题，会直接判决用人单位支付员工税前收入。这种方法又可能会带来税务处理问题。
This case is actually the establishment of two judgment opinions. The firstview is that the option agreement has relativity, and the third party agreementor clause which was not embodied in the option agreement can not bind theparties of the option agreement; The second view is that if the employee cannot be guaranteed to exercise the stock option, the actual loss of the employeeshould be compensated; As for the stock option of the listed company, the numberof the publicly issued shares corresponding to the stock option should be firstdetermined, and then the actual loss of the employee can be calculatedaccording to the stock price on the exercise date subtracting the exerciseprice of the stock option. It is worth mentioning that the court in determiningthe amount of compensation for losses, will not consider the tax issue, butdirectly sentence the employer to pay the employee the income before tax. Thisapproach, in turn, may lead to tax problems.

上面的内容提到了上市公司的股票期权价格的确定，对于非上市公司而言，其股票期权价值又如何评估呢？国家税务总局《关于阿里巴巴（中国）网络技术有限公司雇员非上市公司股票期权所得个人所得税问题的批复》（国税函[2007]1030号）中规定：“由于非上市公司股票没有可参考的市场价格，为便于操作，除存在实际或约定的交易价格，或存在与该非上市股票具有可比性的相同或类似股票的实际交易价格情形外，购买日股票价值可暂按其境外非上市母公司上一年度经中介机构审计的会计报告中每股净资产数额来确定。”此外，还可委托专业评估机构对非上市公司股票的价格进行评估。
The above content mentioned the determination of the stock option prices oflisted companies. For non-listed companies, how to assess the value of theirstock options? In accordance with “the Official Reply of the StateAdministration of Taxation on Issues Concerning Individual Income Tax on StockOption Income of Non-listed Companies for Employees of Alibaba (China) NetworkTechnology Co., Ltd” (letter of SAT[2007] No. 1030)：“Since there is no reference of market price for the stocks of a non-listedcompany, for the convenience of operation, except for the actual or agreedtrading price as well as the actual transaction price of the same or similarstock that is comparable to non-listed stocks, the value of purchased-dayshares may be determined in accordance with the net asset value per sharestated in the accounting report of its overseas non-listed parent company forthe preceding year audited by an intermediary. "In addition, a professionalappraisal organization may be entrusted to appraise the price of the shares ofthe non-listed company.

2、证券纠纷处理模式
Processing Mode as Securities Dispute

证券纠纷处理模式涉及到的最著名的一个案例是关于搜房控股公司与孙宝云的案例[sup][2][/sup]，案例中搜房控股公司败诉，法院认定孙宝云享有该公司一定数量的股票期权。
One of the most famous cases involved in the securities dispute mode is thecase of Soufang Holding vs. Sun Baoyun, in which Soufang Holding lost the case.The court determined that Sun Baoyun enjoyed a certain number of stock optionsof the company.

搜房控股公司败诉的根本理由还是协议的相对性。孙宝云离职时，境内公司虽然与孙宝云签署了离职协议书，其中约定了任何一方不得通过任何途径向对方主张任何权利。孙宝云在离职之后根据股票期权协议向境外公司主张股票期权，境外公司认为应以离职协议书约定为准，不同意员工享受期权待遇，最终法院认为股票期权协议和离职协议书两份文件的性质、内容和签约主体都不同，离职协议书中也没有对孙宝云的股票期权作出处分，也没有变更或者终止股票期权协议。法院认为孙宝云可以依据生效的股票期权协议向境外的搜房控股公司主张期权待遇，并最终确认了孙宝云享有搜房控股公司的股票期权。上面这起案例的裁判观点，在于境内公司的离职协议书不得成为终止员工享受境外公司期权的依据，这是合同相对性的基本原则。
The fundamental reason for Soufang Holding lose the case is the relativityof the agreement. When Sun Baoyun resigned, although the domestic company signeda resignation agreement with Sun Baoyun, in which was agreed that neither partycould claim any rights from the other party through any approach. After heresigned, Sun Baoyun claimed stock options from overseas companies according tothe stock option agreement. The overseas company believed that the terminationagreement should prevail, and did not agree with the employees to enjoy theoption treatment. In the end, the court held that the two documents of thestock option agreement and the termination agreement were different in nature, contentand signing subject. No stock option was punished, and no stock optionagreement was changed or terminated. The court held that Sun Baoyun could claimoption treatment from the overseas Soufun holding company in accordance withthe effective stock option agreement, and finally confirmed that Sun Baoyunenjoyed the stock options of Soufun holding company. The judgment point of theabove case is that the resignation agreement of a domestic company must not bethe fundamental factor for terminating employees' enjoyment of overseas companyoptions, which is the basic principle of contract relativity.

通常而言，具有涉外因素的当事人之间可以约定纠纷的管辖及法律适用。但是在搜房控股公司与孙宝云一案中，正因为缺少事先的管辖及法律适用的约定，最终法院以协议签订地、员工国籍、股权收益地均在境内为理由，依照最密切联系原则确认了中国法院的管辖及中国法律的适用。该案直接影响了2012年之后的股票期权协议和期权计划的拟定，现在大量的期权协议以及期权计划的标准条款都是约定适用境外法律(例如美国加州法律、香港法律等)，提交境外法院或仲裁机构管辖；当然，由于劳动争议处理模式的出现，上述管辖和法律适用条款的效力正在受到越来越多的挑战。
Generally speaking, parties with foreign-related factors can agree on thejurisdiction of the dispute and the application of the law. However, in the caseof SouFun Holding Company and Sun Baoyun, because of the lack of priorjurisdiction and applicable laws, the court finally confirmed China inaccordance with the principle of the closest relationship on the grounds thatthe place where the agreement was signed, the nationality of employees, and theplace of equity income were all in China. This case directly affected the formulationof stock option agreements and option plans after 2012. Now a large number ofstandard terms of option agreements and option plans are agreed to beapplicable to foreign laws (such as California law, Hong Kong law, etc.) andsubmit them to foreign courts or the jurisdiction of arbitration institutions;of course, due to the emergence of labor dispute settlement modes, the effectivenessof the aforementioned jurisdiction and applicable law provisions are beingincreasingly challenged.

3、劳动争议处理模式
Processing Mode as Labor Dispute

将股票期权争议作为劳动争议进行处理是对用人单位最为不利的一种情况。该种处理模式是2015年北京市第一中级人民法院[sup][3][/sup]确定的处理模式。
For employers, handling Stock Option dispute as labor dispute is the mostunfavorable mode. This kind of mode is determined by the Beijing First IntermediatePeople's Court in 2015.

2014年，某员工起诉了境内公司，要求保障期权权利的行使。原审法院以境内公司主体不适格为由裁定驳回起诉，法院的基本的理由是合同的相对性，因为股票期权的授予方并非境内公司，员工起诉境内公司，主体当然不适格；但是在二审中，法院认为股票期权实质上是公司向员工提供的一种福利待遇，应纳入劳动争议处理。虽然境外公司授予期权，但股权期权系基于员工与境内公司之间的劳动关系而得，股票期权行权的实现与员工在境内公司的服务期限、劳动关系是否存续密切相关，故境内公司属于适格被告。
In 2014, an employee sued a domestic company and ask for protecting himexercising his option rights. The court of first instance ruled to dismiss thelawsuit on the grounds that the  domesticcompany is not proper defendant. The basic reason of the court was therelativity of the contract. The stock option was not granted by the domesticcompany, so it is not proper to sue the domestic company. However, in thesecond instance, the court held that stock options were actually staff welfareprovided by the company, and relative dispute should be included into labordisputes. Although options were granted by overseas company, the stock optionswere granted to the employee based on the labor relationship between theemployee and the domestic company. The realization of stock options is closelyconnected to the employee's service period in the domestic company and whetherthe labor relationship persists. Therefore, the domestic company is properdefendant.

就涉及境外公司授予境内员工股票期权待遇而引发的争议，如果按照劳动争议的模式去处理，是否需要追加境外公司为共同被告将成为一个现实问题。目前的司法实践认为，基于授予股票期权的目的在于激励员工更好地为公司服务，以及境外股东与境内公司之间紧密的控制关系，可认定境外股东乃第三人代替境内公司履行相应的合同债务，因此，境外股东与境内公司具有共同的诉讼标的，应为共同诉讼当事人。然而，若仅因股票期权激励合同或计划中涉及劳动关系部分发生争议的，则无需追加境外股东参与争议仲裁和诉讼；此外，若没有证据证明境外股东与境内公司高度混同的，则境内公司无需承担责任。[sup][4][/sup]
Regarding disputes arising from the grant of stock option treatment todomestic employees by overseas company, if it is handled in the mode of labordisputes, it will become a practical issue whether overseas company should beadded as co-defendants. According to current judicial practice, based on thepurpose that granting stock options is to motivate employees to serve thecompany better, and the close control relationship between overseas shareholderand domestic company, the overseas shareholder could be considered as a thirdparty which perform the corresponding contract obligation on behalf of thedomestic company. Therefore, the overseas shareholder and the domestic companyhave common object of litigation, and they shall be co-defendants. However, ifthe dispute is only concerned with the stock option incentive contract or thelabor relationship part of the plan, then it is not necessary to add theoverseas shareholder as co-defendant. In addition, if there is no evidence toprove that the overseas company and the domestic company are highly mixed, thedomestic company does not need to take responsibility.

四、用人单位如何应对员工提起的股票期权争议案件
How the employers deal with stock option disputes filed by employees

随着股票期权争议被按照劳动争议处理模式处理的可能性的增加，作为用人单位的境内公司，面临越来越大的压力。作为用人单位，如何应对涉及股票期权争议的案件成为重要议题。笔者总结了相关实践中的经验，将应对策略总结成程序抗辩和实体抗辩两个方面。
As the possibility of stock option disputes being handled in accordancewith the labor dispute processing mode increases, domestic companies are facingincreasing pressure. As an employer, how to deal with cases involving disputesover stock options has become an important issue. We summarizes the experiencein related practice, and summarizes the coping strategies into two aspects:procedural defense and physical defense:
（一）程序抗辩理由
Procedural defense opinion
1、从处理模式上来进行抗辩
Defense from the processing mode
从处理模式上来看，笔者的建议是尽量避免将涉诉股票期权纠纷被法院纳入劳动争议处理模式。因为从全国范围来看，并不是所有的法院都认为股票期权纠纷是劳动争议，因而可以通过选择一个连接点，将管辖机关确定在对用人单位更加友好的地域。
From the perspective of the processing mode, our suggestion is trying to avoidthe stock option disputes adopted to the labor dispute processing mode by the court.Because from national perspective, not all courts consider stock optiondisputes to be the labor disputes. Therefore, by choosing a connection point, tryingto find a jurisdiction friendly to the employers can be a good choice.
之所以要避免将股票期权纠纷被纳入劳动争议处理模式，最重要的原因是劳动争议处理模式是倾向于劳动者利益保护的，对于员工而言是非常有利的，对于用人单位而言则是非常不利的。所以如果按照普通的合同纠纷来处理，相对来说用人单位有利局面可能会更大一些；但是如果按照劳动争议处理，通过举证责任的分配，用人单位的压力会更大。
The reason why excluded stock option disputes to be the labor dispute modeis that the labor dispute processing mode tends to protect the interests of employees,which is much good for employees. Therefore, if it is handled in accordancewith ordinary contract disputes, the employer may be in a better positionrelatively; however, if it is handled in accordance with labor disputes and theburden of proof is allocated, the pressure on the employer will be harder.
在司法实践中，部分法院认为涉及股票期权争议的案件并非劳动争议案件，其着眼点在于股票期权不是法定的劳动福利。例如，在《翟紫心等劳动争议案》[sup][5][/sup]中，公司规定，翟紫心作为上海帝联公司总经理，在其负责下的销售团队实现不低于500万元经年度审计确认的主营业务的销售收入回款的前提下，翟紫心和其负责下的销售团队每实现100万元经年度审计确认的主营业务的销售收入回款，翟紫心可以于次年完成年度审计后根据上市公司规定获得400股股票期权。后翟紫心辞职，双方发生劳动争议。就案件中涉及到的股票期权问题，翟紫心认为其所主张的股票期权性质为“工资、薪金”所得，属于劳动报酬。北京市三中院则认为翟紫心的上述意见缺乏事实与法律依据，不符合《北京市工资支付规定》的相关规定，其所主张的此部分利益不属于法定劳动报酬，不属于劳动争议的解决范围，故法院对翟紫心的此项请求不予支持。
In judicial practice, some courts consider that cases which involving stockoption disputes are not labor dispute cases. The core point is that stockoptions are not legal labor benefits for the employee. For example, in the caseof “Zixin Zhai and other employees labor dispute", the company stipulatedthat, as the general manager of Shanghai Dilian, the sales team realized noless than 5 million yuan in sales revenue from the main business confirmed byannual audit under the premise of Zixin Zhai and the sales team under hisresponsibility, Zixin Zhai can obtain 400 stock options in accordance with therequirements of listed companies after completing the annual audit the followingyear . After Zixin Zhai resigned, a labor dispute arose between the twoparties. Regarding the stock option issues involved in the case, Zixin Zhaibelieved that the nature of the stock option he claimed was “wages andsalaries”, which belonged to labor compensation. The Beijing Third IntermediateCourt held that Zixin Zhai's above-mentioned opinion lacked factual and legalbasis and did not meet the relevant provisions of the “Beijing Wage PaymentRegulations”. This part of the benefits it claims are not part of the statutorylabor compensation and are not part of the scope of labor dispute settlement.Therefore, the court did not support Zhai Zixin's claim.
目前，将股票期权争议认定为不是劳动争议范畴的法院主要有北京市第三中级人民法院、上海市第一中级人民法院、杭州市中级人民法院、南京市鼓楼区人民法院等。笔者认为，站在用人单位的角度来看，如果与劳动者发生的股票期权争议在上述法院管辖，则对于用人单位来说无疑是有利的。
At present, the courts that identify stock option disputes are not labordisputes mainly include Beijing Third Intermediate Court, Shanghai FirstIntermediate Court, Hangzhou Intermediate Court, Nanjing Gulou District Court,and so on. We believe that from the perspective of the employer, if the stockoption dispute with the employees is under the jurisdiction of the aforementionedcourt, it is undoubtedly beneficial to the employer.
2、从涉诉主体上进行抗辩
Defense from the subject of the complaint
从涉诉主体上来看，用人单位可以原告所列的被告主体有误为由，主张应驳回原告起诉。在《周宏石与纳玛特康而健健身(上海)有限公司劳动合同纠纷案》[sup][6][/sup]中，原告周宏石与被告纳玛特健身公司签订了两期劳动合同，被告CEO余某某在2008年10月8日向原告签发了一份股票期权合约，约定原告有权以0.00001港元的价格分十年合计购入135,000股“NamasteInternationalLimited”(香港Namaste国际有限公司，“NamasteInternationalLimited”系被告唯一股东)股票，但被告始终不履行该期权合约。在该案中，法院认为股票的发行单位非原告所指向的被告，原告亦未举证被告对原告的股票期权或其他应付款项有支付义务，故对原告的此项诉求不予支持。同时，法院指出，股票期权对价及股票款项非劳动法或劳动合同法所调整，故原告要求被告承担劳动法上的义务缺乏依据，其以追索劳动报酬为由提出的诉求请求，法院不予支持。
From the perspective of the subject of the complaint, the employer canclaim that the plaintiff listed the mistake defendant and the plaintiff'sprosecution should be rejected. In the Case of Labor Contract Dispute between HongshiZhou and Namat Healthcare (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., plaintiff Hongshi Zhou and thedefendant Namat Fitness signed a two-term labor contract. Defendant CEO Yu issueda stock option contract to the plaintiff, stipulating that the plaintiff wasentitled to purchase a total of 135,000 shares of "Namaste InternationalLimited" (Hong Kong Namaste International Limited, "NamasteInternational Limited" is the sole shareholder of the defendant) at aprice of HK $ 0.00001 for ten years, but the defendant always fail to performthe contract. In this case, the court held that the issuer of the stock was notthe defendant, and the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant had theobligation to pay the plaintiff's stock options or other payables, therefore rejectedthe plaintiff's claim. At the same time, the court pointed out that the stockoption consideration and stock payment were not adjusted by the labor law orlabor contract law. Therefore, the plaintiff lacked a basis for the defendantto assume the obligations in the labor law area.
（三）实体抗辩理由
Substantive defense opinion
就股票期权争议，从实体抗辩上来看，用人单位有如下四种抗辩理由：
For the stock option dispute, from the point of view of the entity defense,the employer has the following four reasons:
1、以员工无法证明存在股票期权协议为由，主张应驳回员工的诉讼请求
On the ground that the employeecannot prove the existence of the stock option agreement, which makes theemployee's claim should be rejected
在《周浩与上海拍拍贷金融信息服务有限公司其他合同纠纷案》[sup][7][/sup]中，原告主张其与被告签署了期权协议，约定原告自2013年12月3日起获授期权80，000股，分四年行权，每年可行权25%。原告于2015年4月10日离职时，已在公司工作一年多，根据协议约定原告可行权20，000股，但被告多次推托、拒绝原告行权。法院在判决时，认为原、被告之间仅在《录用意向书》中涉及过80，000股期权的事项。但根据该“意向书”的文意理解，其仅仅是一种意向；而且该意向书中明确约定双方的权利义务应以劳动合同为准。但双方的劳动合同中就原告的福利待遇没有约定涉案的80，000股期权，因而法院对原告所主张的股票期权相关的诉讼请求不予支持。通过该案，不难发现法院对于原被告双方是否存在股票期权协议相关的约定的证明责任要求较高，如果在劳动合同或者其他相关合同中未就股票期权作出明确约定的，劳动者所主张的期权利益很难得到法院的支持。
In the Case of Contract Disputes between Hao Zhou and Shanghai PaidaiFinancial Information Service Co., Ltd., the plaintiff claimed that he hadsigned an stock option agreement with the defendant and agreed that the plaintiffwill be granted 80,000 shares of options from December 3, 2013, divided into fourAnnual exercise rights, each year can exercises 25% of the rights. When theplaintiff resigned on April 10, 2015, he had worked in the company for morethan one year, and according to the agreement, the plaintiff's practicable rightswere 20,000 shares. But the defendant evaded and rejected the plaintiff'sexercise rights. At the time of the judgment, the court held that the plaintiffand the defendant had only involved the matter of 80,000 options in the Letterof Intent to Accept. However, according to the textual understanding of the"Letter of Intent", it is only an intention; and it clearlystipulates that the rights and obligations of both parties shall be subject tothe labor contract. However, the labor contract between the two parties did notstipulate the 80,000 options involved in the welfare of the plaintiff, so thecourt did not support the plaintiff's claim. Through this case, it is not difficultto find that the court has higher requirements on the burden of proof on whetherthe original defendant has any agreement related to the stock option agreement.If the labor contract or other related contracts do not make a clear agreementon stock options, it is difficult for employee to obtain option interests bythe court.
2、以期权计划存在程序瑕疵或内容瑕疵为由，主张应驳回员工的诉讼请求
On the ground that there are procedural or content defects in the optionplan, which makes the employee's claim should be rejected
在《李某某与宁波某某股份有限公司劳动合同纠纷案》[sup][8][/sup]中，法院认为，从协议效力来说，根据中国证监会颁布的《上市公司股权激励管理办法》的规定，股权激励计划需由上市公司下设的薪酬与考核委员会拟订草案，并提交董事会审议，董事会通过后将有关材料报中国证监会备案，在中国证监会未提出异议的情况下，上市公司召开股东大会审议并实施该计划。因而股权激励计划需要有严格的法定程序，而原、被告所签订的股权激励计划并未通过上述任何一道程序，而仅仅由董事长、总经理、原告三方签订了一份协议，而该协议也未经过董事会、股东大会通过，也没有报证监会备案，故该协议缺乏其生效、实施的必备法定条件和程序。最终法院没有支持原告主张的其所应当享有的股份或者相应的折价款及25％补偿金的诉讼请求。
In the "Labor Dispute Case between Li Moumou and Ningbo Moumou Co.,Ltd.", the court held that, in terms of the validity of the agreement,according to the "Administrative Measures for the Equity Incentive ofListed Companies" which issued by the China Securities RegulatoryCommission, the equity incentive plan needs the remuneration and appraisalcommittee which under the listed company draws up a draft and submits it to theboard of directors for review. After the board of directors passes the relevantmaterials to the China Securities Regulatory Commission for filing, the listed companyholds a shareholders' meeting to review and implement the plan withoutobjection from the CSRC . Therefore, the equity incentive plan requires strictlegal procedures, and the equity incentive plan signed by the plaintiff and thedefendant did not pass any of the above procedures, and only the chairman,general manager, and plaintiff signed an agreement, and the agreement has notbeen approved by the board of directors or shareholders' meeting, nor has itbeen filed with the CSRC. Therefore, the agreement lacks the necessary legalconditions and procedures for its entry into force and implementation. In the end,the court did not support the claim that the plaintiff should enjoy the sharesor the corresponding discount and 25% compensation.
3、以员工股票期权行权条件不成就为由，主张应驳回员工的诉讼请求
On the ground that the employee'sstock option exercise conditions are not fulfilled, which makes the employee'sclaim should be rejected
在《李波文与深圳市国泰安信息技术有限公司劳动合同纠纷案》[sup][9][/sup]中，被告深圳市国泰安信息技术有限公司提交的《期股（IPO原始股股票）奖励标准指引》系关于公司期股的规范性文件，其中列明了股权期权奖励实现的条件。根据该规定，原告在被告工作未满三年，且非因健康原因离职，其所持有的员工期股奖励作废，故原告李波文要求被告国泰安公司支付年度保障期股300000元的诉讼请求没有事实依据，法院不予支持。这是一起典型的，法院因为股票期权行权条件不成就而驳回员工诉讼请求的案件。由此可见，在股票期权相关争议中，法院将更多的尊重当事人的意思自治，通常会以双方的协议约定作为裁判的标准。
In the "Boli Wen and Shenzhen Guotai'an Information Technology Co.,Ltd. Labor Contract Dispute Case", the defendant Shenzhen Guotai'anInformation Technology Co., Ltd.'s provided "Future Shares (IPO OriginalShares) Reward Standards Guidelines" which is a specification on companyfutures Document, which sets out the conditions for the realization of equityoption awards. According to this rule, the plaintiff has worked in the defendantfor less than three years and has not left the company for reasonable reasons.The employee's futures share awards are invalidated. Therefore, the plaintiffBowen Li asked the defendant Guotai'an to pay an annual security period of300,000 yuan. Based on facts, the court did not support it. This is a typicalcase in which the court rejected an employee's lawsuit because the stock optionexercise conditions were not fulfilled. In the stock option-related disputes,the courts will respect the parties' autonomy, and will usually use theagreement between the two parties as the criterion for adjudication.
4、以员工实质性违反股票期权协议的约定为由，主张应驳回员工的诉讼请求
On the ground that the employee substantially violated the stock optionagreement, which makes the employee's claim should be rejected
在《深圳市华测检测技术股份有限公司与王利俊合同纠纷案》[sup][10][/sup]中，深圳市中级人民法院二审认为，被告华测公司与原告王利俊自愿签订《授予期权协议书》，双方当事人均应依约履行各自义务。王利俊已对华测公司授予的股票期权进行行权且取得收益，但王利俊出资设立的公司存在与被告的子公司相同的经营范围，王利俊的行为已违反《授予期权协议书》的约定，华测公司要求王利俊返还行权所得收益的诉讼请求，法院予以支持。本案是典型的因员工违反股票期权协议的约定（比如违反了竞业限制义务或者服务期约定等）而被判应该返还行权收益的案例；反过来说，如果员工存在违反股票期权协议约定的行为，其针对用人单位提出的有关股票期权相关的诉讼请求，通常也不会得到法院的支持。
Inthe "Shenzhen Huatest Testing Technology Co., Ltd. and Lijun Wang ContractDispute Case", the Shenzhen Intermediate Court held that the defendantHuatest Company and the plaintiff Lijun Wang voluntarily signed the "grantoption agreement", and both parties should perform according to thecontract obligations. Lijun Wang has exercised and obtained the stock optionsgranted by Huatest, but the company established by Wang Lijun has the samebusiness scope as the defendant's subsidiary. Wang Lijun ’s behavior hasviolated the provisions of the “Award Option Agreement” The court requestedWang Lijun to return the proceeds of the exercise. This case is a typical casein which employees were sentenced to return the exercise proceeds because theyviolated the stock option agreement (for example, they violated the non-competitionobligation or service terms); on the contrary, if the employee violated thestock option agreement, which are related to stock option, usually will objectby the court.

[1]详见北京市第一中级人民法院（2015）一中民（商）终字第1275号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of BeijingFirst Intermediate Court (2015) Yi Zhong Min (Shang) Zhongzi No. 1275.
[2]详见北京市高级人民法院（2012）高民终字第1879号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of BeijingHigher Court (2012) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 1879.
[3]详见北京市第一中级人民法院（2019）京01民辖终832号《民事裁定书》。
See the Civil Ruling of Beijing FirstPeople's Court (2019) Jing 01 Min Xia Zhong No. 832.
[4]详见上海市第一中级人民法院（2017）沪01民终11741号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of ShanghaiFirst People's Court (2017) Shanghai 01 Min Zhong 11741.
[5]详见北京市第三中级人民法院(2014)三中民终字第05189号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of Beijing No.3 Intermediate Court (2014) San Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 05189.
[6]详见上海市黄浦区人民法院（2014）浦民一（民）初字第2439号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of ShanghaiHuangpu District Court (2014) Pu Min Yi (Min) Chu Zi No. 2439.
[7]详见上海市浦东新区人民法院（2015）浦民二（商）初字第1932号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of ShanghaiPudong District Court (2015) Pu Min Er (Shang) Chu Zi No.1932.
[8]详见上海市松江区人民法院（2009）松民一（民）初字第5227号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of Shanghai SongjiangDistrict Court (2009) Song Min Yi (Min) Chu Zi No. 5227.
[9]详见广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2015）深中法劳终字第2213号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of ShenzhenIntermediate Court of Guangdong Province (2015) Shen Zhong Fa Lao Zhong Zi No.2213.
[10]详见广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2015）深中法商终字第294号《民事判决书》。
See the Civil Judgment of Shenzhen IntermediateCourt of Guangdong Province (2015) Shen Zhong Fa Shang Zi No. 294.


胡高崇
合伙人
hugaochong@zlwd.com
胡高崇律师现任中伦文德律师事务所北京总所合伙人，主要业务领域涵盖争议解决、劳动雇佣与员工激励、公司合规及企业法律顾问服务。加入中伦文德之前，胡高崇律师供职于国内另一家知名律所，先后担任律师及合伙人；胡律师也曾经长期在北京市某法院从事审判工作，审理千余起案件，类型涵盖合同纠纷、劳动争议等。

蒋倩倩
实习律师
jiangqianqian@zlwd.com
蒋倩倩现为中伦文德律师事务所北京总所实习律师，主要业务领域为争议解决、劳动雇佣与员工激励、公司合规及企业法律顾问服务。

中伦文德律师事务所

法律人的公众号

微信公众号ID：BJZLWD
联系方式：8610-64402232