论文标题:证券市场虚假陈述之民事责任研究
On Unreal Joint and Several Liabilities
论文作者 徐东平
论文导师 石慧荣,论文学位 硕士,论文专业 民商法
论文单位 西南政法大学,点击次数 112,论文页数 40页File Size1981k
2004-04-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_46033407/ 纯经济损失;第三人纯经济损失;相关经济损失;英美法系;大陆法系;过失不实陈述;注册会计师
pure economic loss,pure economic loss to third party,relational economic loss,Anglo-American law system,continental law system,negligent misrepresentation, certified accountant
本文主要研究证券市场虚假陈述行为的民事责任问题，包括导言，正文及结束语，其中正文分为三个部分。 本文导言简要分析了虚假陈述行为产生的背景原因及其危害性，我国虚假陈述行为的泛滥之现状。 正文第一部分是对虚假陈述行为之界定。主要研究虚假陈述的涵义、特点、分类及其认定。本文认为虚假陈述是违反信息披露义务的行为的统称。一、从主体方面看，虚假陈述的主体具有特定性；从客体方面看；虚假陈述违反的是证券信息披露制度中的义务性及禁止性规范；从客观上看，虚假陈述的手段是违背信息披露要求的行为；从主观方面来看，虚假陈述主体主观上须有过错。二、根据虚假陈述的主体、发生的阶段、行为之性质、信息披露之内容、对投资人判断的影响、以及表现形式对虚假陈述行为作了多种分类，展现了其多方面特质。三、对虚假陈述行为的表现形态作了深入的剖析。此外，鉴于对发行、交易或相关活动前景进行预测的虚假陈述有其特殊之处，本文将其归结为虚假预测作了分析。四、虚假陈述的“重大性”(Materiality)认定标准。何为“重大性”?本文从比较的视角，对中美英三国的相关立法作了分析，笔者认为准确把握“重大性”标准可以从以下视角来进行判断：第一，法律法规，规范性文件有无规定，这可以从查询对照来考量；第二，所披露信息对投资者的影响力，这可以根据一段合理期间内的市场反映得到印证；第三，若既无明文规定，又不存在激烈的市场反映，则应本着诚实信用的原则，以“影响投资者决策标准”来综合考虑，谨慎作出判断。并且笔者认为“重大性”标准应当认为法定的，它对于任何类型的应承担民事责任的虚假陈述都是必备的。 正文第二部分是虚假陈述民事责任的性质及构成要件。分为二部分。其一是虚假陈述民事责任的性质。虚假陈述民事责任究竟为何种性质的民事责任，在学术上颇有争议，共有侵权责任说、契约责任说、缔约过失责任说和独立责任说之分歧。笔者逐一评述，并认为应当采用侵权责任说更为妥当。其二，虚假陈述民事责任构成要件。从虚假陈述者的主观过错、归责原则、损害后果、虚假陈述行为和损害后果之间的因果关系方面进行讨论。对于归责原则，笔者认为，虚假陈述民事责任归责原则必须是该制度的设计与证券市场的良好发展前景的价值目标相一致。认为发起人、发行人(上市公司)适用无过错责任原则;发行人或上市公司的董事、监事和经理等高级管理人员适用过错推定责任原则，证券影肖商及其董事、监事和经理等高级管理人员适用过错推定责任原则;对会计师事务所、律师事务所和资产评估公司等专业中介服务机构及其人员适用过错推定责任原则;对除会计师事务所、律师事务所和资产评估公司等专业中介服务机构以外的其他机构和个人适用过错责任原则。对于因果关系，笔者否定了我国司法实践中的必然因果关系说，主张‘湘当因果关系说”，如何证明虚假陈述行为与损害后果有相当因果关系说，笔者认为应借鉴美国证券立法的 “推澎言赖”原则，以图氏了投资者的证明要求，切实维护广大中小投资者的权益。 正文第三部分从司法角度来研究虚假陈述的实体法律救济。主要从赔偿权利主体的范围，赔偿义务主体的范围及其抗辩事由、举证责任、诉讼时效等问题进行分析。一、对赔偿权利主体的范围本文从权利主体限制和享有诉权的权利主体范围二方面阐述。原告承担举证责任的关键在于证明虚假陈述行为与其损害之间存在因果关系。二、赔偿义务主体的范围及抗辩事由。对责任主体之范围，应从两个角度来确定:一是从构成要件，要确定虚假陈述的主体的信息披露对市场或对投资者的影响及虚假陈述主体在信息披露中的注意义务及其过错;二是从司法实际出发，要考虑受损者与虚假陈述者之间利益平衡。在发行人的免责事由上，笔者从中美两国相关规定，认为发行人只要证明不存在虚假陈述、虚假陈述不符合重大性标准、超过诉讼时效，投资者的损失是由系统风险造成等理由而减免责任。对发行人之外的免责，笔者认为，发行人之外的其他主体如果能够证明自己已经勤勉尽责，·路尽职守，并且进行了合理调查，就可以认定其已经尽到了应尽的注意义务，从而推翻对其主观上的过错推定。三、诉讼时效。笔者从司法角度对此作了细致的分析。 本文结束语认为:现阶段要建立完善的证券市场民事责任制度，必须充分发挥最高人民法院司法解释作用，形成司法与立法良胜互动;重视传统法律文化，转变法治理念。
This thesis is mainly on the civil liability for misrepresentation on the securities market and is divided into three parts.The first part of this article focus on the definition of misrepresentation and compromises the following topics. First, this article held that misrepresentation is" the behavior of unjust and improper disclosing information and stating facts. Secondly, the author thought misrepresentation could be classified according to subject of misrepresentation, stage of information disclose, natures of misrepresentation, contents of misrepresentation and effects of investor. Thirdly, the thesis analyzed the three performances of misrepresentation which are false representation or untrue statement, serious misleading statement and omission to state material facts, the author suggested that we should built our own bespeaks caution rule and system of safe harbor referring to related institution of America. Fourthly, in the examination on the materiality of misrepresentation, we should take standard of "influencing the decision of investor" as standard to determine the materiality of information and should pertain the legal form of this standard through stipulation by samples.Part two of this article examined the nature and constitutive requirement of civil liability of misrepresentation. First, as to the nature of civil liability of misrepresentation, there were four doctrines; the author thought that we should use the doctrine of stipulated liability on the basis of examination on the said doctrines. Secondly, this thesis analyzed the constitutive requirements of civil liability of misrepresentation from the points of misrepresenting subject" fault, doctrine of liability fixation, harmful consequence, cautionary relation. As to doctrine of liability fixation the author thought that, be in line with the subject merit to design of the system and good developed view of securities market. As to cautionary relation, the author thought of denial of the doctrine of necessary cautionary relation, persisting in the doctrine of considerable cautionary relation.Part three was the discovery on questions about system of relief onsubstantial law from the point of judicial practice that included four parts. In the first part, the author defined the proper plaintiff and burden of producing evidence thereof and limitation of proper plaintiff by deferent means. In the second part, the author held that the proper defendant and caution of counterclaim. In the last part, the article study accounting of the limitation of actions from judicial practice.In the end, the author think that for building perfect the system of civil liability to securities market we must make good use of the function of judicial interpretations of The Supreme Court and pay more attention to traditional legal culture and transfigure the idea of "rule of law".
|
