我國公司法己改採完全授權資本制，股份有限公司於設立登記時，無須一次全額發行，亦無須一次發行達章程授權資本額之四分之一，而得由董事會以特別決議為分次發行，而為使我國資本市場與國際接軌並為促進僑外投資我國資本市場，使公司籌集資金能夠更靈活多樣，以符合各種不同特性之投資人所需，我國乃陸續引進多種衍生性證券( derivative securities)，惟因修法過程及主管機關之不同，而使上開衍生性證券之規定散見於公司法、證券交易法及由主管機關依授權所制訂之辦法中，規範因而有所扞格。此外，因為上述法令規定或有不足或有衝突，故主管機關乃經由職權對相關法令作成解釋，惟前後解釋間或有立場不一致，或有理論基礎欠周之處，而使得衍生性證券之管制規範呈現相當複雜的交錯現象。再者，因衍生性證券之發行，畢竟尚非屬現實的發行新股，故某些公司法或證券交易法之規範係專為發行新股而設者，即產生是否除外適用之效果，而若干明文排除適用之規定卻又衍生更多問題，益使發行新股與發行衍生性證券間之法律適用關係複雜化，難以釐清。 本文擬以我國現行法制及主管機關對於發行新股及發行衍生性證券所作之解釋為研究分析目標與範圍，不擬以比較法之方法探討外國法制，並主要以探討可直接促使發行公司發給股權之衍生性證券之發行、意義、性質、現行法令及解釋對之所作之限制、對公司法所產生之除外適用效果等問題，並試圖提出個人對於主管機關之解釋有何不妥或矛盾之處，因可供參考之文獻有限，希祈本文之提出能引來各界方家之批評指正，則本文目的達矣。

Taiwan has adopted the authorized capital mechanism into his Company Code, and a company does not have to issue all of its authorized capital shares at the time of registration. For the purposes to work with the global capital markets and to attract foreign investors to invest in Taiwan's capital market, and also for the purpose to fit for different investors, the authorities have introduced several kinds of derivative securities into the Company Code and Securities Exchange Act as new investment tools for domestic and international investors. However, due to the process of the legislation and different government agencies have regulatory power over those derivative securities; the regulatory mechanisms are now a little confused for investors and for scholars. Meanwhile, the agencies have had issued many orders in regarding to the procedure of issuance, nature, exemption effects of those derivative securities and which may have explicit or potential conf1icts among such orders. How to resolve this complicated regulatory scheme; therefore, should be a very important issue for the agencies. In this article, the author will focus on those derivative securities which may directly impose the issuer with a compulsory legal obligation to issue new shares to the holder of the derivative securities in the current regulatory mechanism as the research scope only, and will analyze the domestic orders issued by the agencies and statutory regulations only, but will not exploit the comparative methodology for a cross-border’s examination. And the author will try to point out those conflicts and confuses among such orders and statutory regulations. The author is expecting to receive valuable comments from all of the readers.