公司法2009年修正重點有三：引進企業肥貓條款、廢除法定最低實收資本額及配合民法禁治產制度之改革而為之文字調整。若追溯至近年之重要修正，則2005年之修法不容小覷，蓋其引進少數股東提案權及董事候選人提名制度。 回顧2009年公司法之實務發展，四個議題值得關注：即股東會之運作、董事之忠實義務、解任董事及假處分之運用。其中尤令人憂心者，乃經過數十年之發展，就股東會議程之設定方式，實務似已形成共識。凡於召集事由中列舉「變更章程」四字即符合法律規定，至於股東會上所得修正之章程內容將不受限制。此一定見無疑強化現任經營者操縱股東會之空間。 另一方面，對於董事有無違反其注意義務之認定上，實務已逐漸朝向制度建立之方向判定，誠屬可喜之發展，然就忠實義務內容之認定仍未臻成熟。 證交法於2009年並無重要修法，反而2006 年該次之修正值得一書。不論是改善財報之品質、強化公司治理、加重不實財報之民事責任或改進市場不法行為之構成要件，對於資本市場法制均產生深遠之影響。 內線交易或操縱市場上之實務見解並無令人驚豔之發展。但以不實財報詐騙相對人以低價出售持股之案件中，最高法院指出相關會計法規乃保護他人之法律而為賠償基礎之見解，令人強烈質疑將架空證交法固有民事賠償之機制。

The 2009 Company Law amendments are centered on three issues: the introduction of a ”fat cat” clause, the abolishment of minimum subscribed share capital and the wording adjustments to match the changes in the Civil Code. Looking back upon the 2005 amendments, several amendments are worth mentioning, for example, the introduction of the shareholder proposals and shareholder director nominations. As regards the case development, four aspects deserve further examination: the operation of the general meeting, the directors' fiduciary duty, the removal of directors and the utilization of injunctions. According to the Company Law, any proposal to amend the company's articles of association must be recorded in the meeting agenda in advance. However, whether the provisions proposed to be amended should be included in the meeting notice simultaneously is arguable. The Supreme Court seems to make its final decision that no detailed information related to the amended clauses should be disclosed before the meeting. Such a development worries scholars as it provides the incumbent directors with the possibility of manipulating the general meeting. On the other hand, the court, when judging the directors' breach of duty of care, is inclined to consider that the board is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the internal control system rather than being in charge of the day-to-day operations. Although the judiciary is more pragmatic, it is yet appreciative of the essence of fiduciary duty. There were no important developments in securities regulation in 2009, compared with the 2006 amendments. Both in regard to insider dealing and market manipulation, the judiciary did not produce any new rules or clarify the existing problems. Nonetheless, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court opined that the accounting and auditing rules are statutory provisions enacted for the protection of others. This will undoubtedly nullify the damages provisions in the Securities and Exchange Act and should be strongly criticized.