证券虚假陈述民事赔偿因果关系论

证券交易的因果关系所要确定的是 ,虚假陈述与投资者的投资决策之间是否存在因果关系。而要证明是否存在交易的因果关系 ,最重要的是证明信赖关系的存在。《规定》借鉴了美国证券市场的经验 ,采纳了市场欺诈理论和信赖推定原则加以解决。     

浅析完善我国证券虚假陈述民事责任法律制度

证券市场上的虚假陈述行为此起彼伏,广大投资者的法益却很难得到应有的保护,这损害了投资者对中国股市的信心,反映了我国证券虚假陈述民事责任法律制度不够健全.本文通过对证券虚假陈述行为的责任主体、表现形式、因果关系以及现有制度存在问题的初步分析,提出了完善虚假陈述民事责任制度的一些建议.     

证券虚假陈述民事责任的认定

本文作者针对证券虚假陈述民事责任制度,这一我国证券立法的薄弱环节,着重从证券虚假陈述行为的认定、主体的认定、民事责任形式以及构成要件的认定几个方面,综合运用比较分析、价值分析的方法,进行了详细阐述。笔者不揣浅薄,在证券虚假陈述民事责任形式中缔约过失责任、侵权责任和担保责任之间的区分及认定、发行人之外其他责任主体归责原则、证券虚假陈述因果关系的认定、损害范围认定等方面提出一些个人见解,以期有益于我国相关民事立法的进一步完善。     

论虚假陈述侵权行为的几个时间点

最高人民法院颁布的《关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定》（以下简称《规定》），就证券市场上的投资人因虚假陈述行为侵害遭受损失提起民事赔偿诉讼的若干问题作了规定。《规定》首次在规范性文件中应用了虚假陈述的几个时间点的概念，以认定投资人损失与虚假陈述行为之间的因果关系、认定投资人损失的计算基准点。本文拟对这几个时间点概念及其在民事赔偿诉讼中的意义作一探讨。一、虚假陈述对股票价格影响的基本过程及三个时间点概念的引出经济学的基本原理认为，价格决定于价值。在证券市场上挂牌交易的股票是一…     

试论证券法中的虚假陈述

虚假陈述的概念是指负有信息披露义务的单位或个人,在证券发行、交易活动中,违反信息披露制度,在有关文件中虚构事实或遗漏事实,诱骗投资者证券的行为.证券市场中虚假陈述的行为方式有多种.需对虚假陈述行为进行分类,认定虚假陈述行为应当注意些问题.     

深圳市商业银行宝安支行与湖南长炼兴长集团有限责任公司、深圳民鑫实业有限公司、广东金汇源投资担保有限责任公司、西北亚奥信息技术股份有限公司、吴忠仪表集团有限公司、深圳国安会计师事务所有限公司返还资金保证合同纠纷案——最高人民法院民事判决书 （2007）民二终字第26号

金融机构为债务人出具虚假资金证明，是否应当对债权人的损失承担出具虚假资金证明的赔偿责任，应当审查债权人的损失是否基于对金融机构出具的虚假资金证明的合理信赖或者使用所造成，即债权人的损失与金融机构出具虚假资金证明的行为之间是否存在因果关系。如果债权人的损失与金融机构出具虚假资金证明的行为之间并不存在因果关系，则金融机构不应对债权人的损失承担出具虚假资金证明的赔偿责任。     

日本证券虚假陈述责任法律适用对我国的启示

从日本证券虚假陈述责任法律适用的发展以及我国的司法实践来看,对目前我国在证券虚假陈述领域内的民事责任认定进行重新审视实有必要。《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定》中规定的虚假陈述的性质究竟是证券责任还是侵权责任值得讨论。首先,证券虚假陈述责任应打开侵权责任法的救济之门,而在适用侵权责任时,必须合理区分虚假陈述和损害之间的事实因果关系和损害因果关系,防止一刀切。而为保护投资者救济选择权,也应同时在证券法中规定虚假陈述损害的具体推算方法;其次必须明确虚假陈述损害推定的计算期间和揭露主体应为对公司财产和业务上具有法定权限的人;最后,还必须同时在民法和民诉法中配套规定,在审理证券虚假陈述案的过程中,给予法院一定的裁量权。     

论证券虚假陈述的民事赔偿机制

证券民事责任赔偿机制涉及证券欺诈行为的界定,责任主体与责任形式的确立、因果关系与过错的认定、赔偿金额的确定等诸多因素,最高人民法院最近出台的有关司法解释对证券虚假陈述民事赔偿机制的运用作了具体规定。应结合有关规定对虚假陈述行为进行合理界定,明确责任主体范围与责任形式,并采取因果关系的推定性和多元化的归责原则,合理确定赔偿金额。     

证券民事赔偿诉讼若干问题研究

证券民事诉讼前置程序虽具有阶段性的合理性,但弊大于利应予以废止;我国证券民事赔偿诉讼的范围限于虚假陈述赔偿,应将其扩大;证券民事赔偿案的诉讼形式不应限于人数确定的代表人诉讼,应引入人数不确定的代表人诉讼;证券民事侵权赔偿案件实行无过错责任与过错推定责任相结合,因果关系依据诱多虚假陈述对市场和投资者影响的模型确定。     

虚假陈述行为的表现形式及其认定

在我国的证券市场上 ,虚假陈述行为的存在较为严重 ,如何认定形形色色的虚假陈述行为不仅是一个立法问题 ,也是一个司法实践要解决的问题。虚假陈述行为的外在表现可分为虚假记载行为、严重误导行为和重大遗漏行为三种情形 ,文章在探讨每一种虚假陈述行为的特征基础上 ,就每一种虚假陈述行为的认定作了较为细致地分析。     

保险法上的因果关系认定与司法推理——以意外死亡保险为例

保险法上的因果关系认定,其目的在于界定保险人的赔付责任范围,其背景是保险合同已对保险人的承保范围和除外责任都做出了规定。事实上,在保险案件中,法院在认定因果关系时,往往已融入了对保险合同条款的价值判断。在意外死亡保险中,有关因果关系认定的司法实践充分说明了这一点。在当代社会,法院在认定保险法上的因果关系时,应遵循保护被保险人的合理期待的原则。     

McTear v Imperial Tobacco: understanding the role and limitations of expert epidemiological evidence in scientific litigation

The use of epidemiological evidence in litigation presents a range of challenges for both litigants and the courts. Given the complex statistical basis of epidemiology itself, it is possible that the technical and factual constraints associated with such evidence may fail to be properly considered by a trier of fact. The recent Scottish decision in McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2005] Scots CSOH 69 sets a high standard for the future use of epidemiological evidence and thoroughly evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiology generally. While epidemiological evidence remains controversial, and cannot in itself prove direct causation (nor causation in the individual), it is likely it will continue to be adduced as indirect evidence of general causation. It is also likely, however, that both the subjective and objective processes involved in epidemiological study design and reporting will be questioned by courts more thoroughly than has historically been the case. Further, failure by a party to adduce primary evidence (ie original data sets and interpretation thereof) of an epidemiological study which it seeks to rely on at trial will most likely undermine the value of adducing such evidence in the first place.     

Factual causation in medical negligence

The conventional approach to causation in negligence is the "but for" test, decided on the balance of probabilities. Even when supplemented by the "material contribution" principle, satisfying the onus of proof of causation can be an insuperable obstacle for plaintiffs, particularly in medical cases. Yet, having found a breach of duty, a court's sympathies may gravitate toward the plaintiff at this point in the case. Accordingly, courts have sometimes accepted a relaxation of strict causation principles. The judicial devices are described: a special principle of causation in particular duties of care; a shifting burden of proof; "bridging the evidentiary gap" by drawing a robust inference of causation; treating a material increase in risk as sufficient proof of causation; and permitting causation to be established on the basis of the loss of a material chance of achieving a better outcome and discounting damages. In Accident Compensation Corp v Ambros [2007] NZCA 304 the New Zealand Court of Appeal recognised the need for a legal device to ameliorate the injustice sometimes caused by the strict rules of causation, and preferred the "inferential reasoning" approach favoured by the Canadian common law for use in the context of the accident compensation scheme. It is hoped that the New Zealand Supreme Court approves Ambros if the opportunity arises.     

论对发展中国家参与投资条约仲裁的援助

近年来,发展中国家签署的双边投资条约在为其营造稳定、透明投资环境的同时,为投资者利用条约仲裁条款挑战东道国政府提供了创新性的争议解决模式。很多发展中国家缺乏参与投资条约仲裁的经验,并且没有能力支付雇用外部律师的昂贵费用,投资条约仲裁的合法性受到威胁。投资条约仲裁法律援助中心的建立,可以为发展中国家获取法律权威资料和法律专门人才提供便利,以使其能有效地应对投资条约争议的申请。     

Substituting a judgment of best interests: dignity and the application of objective principles to PVS cases in the U.K

The mêlée that surrounded the last days of Terri Schiavo's life was reminiscent of a classical Greek tragedy. Much like Antigone, Ms. Schiavo became enmeshed in irresistible and opposite forces, resolved to use her situation as an arena for the determination of political and legal issues as diverse as the exercise of states' rights, the extent of individual rights, the role of the judiciary, the re-opening of the abortion debate, and the regulation of stem cell research. As Europeans watched the drama unfold, the forces at play in the United States clashed head-on, in a rhetorically inflammatory spectacle which, on this side of the Atlantic, left many aghast. Most unsettling was the prospect of individuals wielding the power of state and national legislatures in what was, ultimately, an intensely personal affair. In the United Kingdom, the struggle was a stark reminder of the differences, not only between British and American political culture, but between our approaches to legal issues which present themselves at the end of life. The existence of well-established procedures and principles, and the extensive involvement of neutral third parties and the courts in pursuit of an objective determination of an individual patient's 'best interests', are key to the conclusion that Terri Schiavo's case would have been handled at least as effectively and efficiently as it was by the courts in Florida and the United States. That issues of consent and capacity can be determined by British courts on the basis of generally applicable principles leads to the subsequent conclusion that a 'best interests' determination leaves significantly less scope for conflict than the individualistic, much more personal and determinative construct of the 'substituted judgment' test in the United States.     

Administrative and policy issues in reimbursement for nursing home capital investment.

The way in which states reimburse for nursing home capital costs can create incentives for nursing home owners to use the home primarily as a vehicle for real estate speculation, with potentially adverse consequences for patient care. In order to help promote and control the stability, adequacy, and quality of capital investment in long-term care, an increasing number of states are using a fair-rental approach for calculating capital reimbursement. In this article we compare the fair-rental approach with traditional cost-based capital reimbursement in terms of administration and policy. We discuss issues of concern to the state (cost and reimbursement design options) and the investor (after-tax cash flows, rate of return, etc.). Our analysis suggests that fair-rental systems may be superior to traditional cost-based reimbursement in promoting and controlling industry stability, while at the same time providing an adequate return to investors, without incurring long-term increases in the costs of administering programs.     

论我国证券欺诈赔偿责任机制的完善

在我国证券欺诈案中,个人投资者救济难题是投资者"代理人"责任规则不健全、证券欺诈救济机制不完善的结果。不当获利返还原则是内涵"矫正正义"的结构性原则,该原则将投资者收益权保障目标贯穿于投资者代理人过错考察和证券欺诈赔偿基金制度中。"公平基金"等证券投资者赔偿基金,是该原则的具体应用。在2008年美国金融危机前后,大量投资者通过公平基金获偿。这也为我国投资者救济难题的解决和证券欺诈赔偿责任机制的完善提供了新的分析思路。     

Punish Once or Punish Twice: A Theory of the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Addition to Regulatory Penalties

Though clearly distinct in nature and procedure, both regulatoryagencies and courts frequently rely on similar instruments tosanction the same or very similar kinds of illegal behavior.In this article, we develop a theory of the use of criminalsanctions in addition to regulatory penalties. We show that,even though it is generally more effective to have a penaltyimposed by a regulatory agency rather than by the courts, undersome conditions it is optimal to have both. The article providesthree arguments: agency costs when delegating law enforcement,legal error, and collusion between a regulatory agency and anoffender. The objective of the article, though, is not limitedto the determination of the theoretical conditions that canmake the use of both sanctioning schemes optimal. Our analysisis also relevant to the application of a specific legal doctrine,the Double Jeopardy Clause.     

论医学人体试验中的侵权责任——以比较法为视角

当前我国立法与司法未对医学人体试验侵权责任与医疗损害责任加以区分,对其归责原则和因果关系也有不同认识。在美国,法院渐趋认可人体试验侵权责任为独立诉因,在过错和因果关系的认定上,则分别有主观说和客观说等不同的观点。大陆法系国家中,法国将人体试验侵权责任作为一种特殊侵权,并区分治疗性试验和非治疗性试验分别适用过错责任原则和无过错责任原则。德国将人体试验作为一般过错侵权,并在涉及药品的案件中适用产品责任。荷兰将人体试验侵权责任作为一种独立的侵权责任,并适用过错责任原则。晚近的立陶宛《生物医学试验法》规定了人体试验侵权的无过错责任。我国应当构建独立于医疗侵权责任的人体试验侵权责任,其归责原则为过错责任原则。在因果关系问题上,应当采取相当因果关系、疫学原理因果关系以及因果关系推定理论来进行综合判断。     

事实因果关系不明侵权中比例因果关系的确定

事实因果关系不明的侵权,意味着被告行为是否是原告特定损害的事实上原因,无法得到符合标准要求的证明,因此具体因果关系的认定非常困难。比例因果关系用以确定致害因素与特定损害结果之间的可能性联系及其比值,具有推定性和评价性特点,是解决这类侵权责任承担问题的技术工具和关键因素。比例因果关系的确定需经过一般因果关系的确定和与个案具体情况的比对这两个步骤,其"比例"数额的确定是在综合考虑各种事实因素和酌定因素的基础上,参考有关数据进行的综合评价,用于恰当分配被告的责任。比例因果关系是法律思维从确定化向灵活性转变的产物,具有相当程度的可接受性。