证券虚假陈述法律上的认定标准

发布时间：2018-02-17 06:57

本文关键词： 证券虚假陈述重大性标准　出处：《南京大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：我国法律中对于证券虚假陈述的认定标准没有明确规定,而法律实践中又亟需一个明确的认定标准来对虚假陈述行为进行规制。本文分析了于我国法律及实践中所采纳的虚假陈述认定标准,同时与比较了世界各国法律特别是美国法中的认定标准,并从中总结出我国法律值得借鉴之处。文章主要分为四个部分,内容分别如下：文章第一部分从虚假陈述认定标准的学说争议中引出事实重大性和结果重大性标准的分歧。然后对关于这两个重大性标准的法律学说进行了分析。文章第二部分对我国法律中的虚假陈述行为标准及重大性标准进行了分析.我国法律中对于虚假陈述行为形态的规定缺乏一个兜底条款。我国法律中对于重大性采取“投资者决策"标准与“证券价格”标准,并且在法律实践中拓展了这两个标准的适用范围。文章第三部分进行了比较法分析。首先对各国立法中存在的“重大事实”“重大变化”“重大信息”三个概念进行了分析。其次,具体分析了美国的立法和判例,得出美国法院所确定的判断信息重大性的标准有两个方面：一方面,从理性投资人的角度出发。如果一个信息被理性投资人认为是重要的,并将会实质地影响理性投资人的投资决策,那么该信息可以被认定为具有重大性。另一方面,美国法院对重大性标准的适用采取根据个案来进行确定的态度。在使用重大性标准时,必须综合考虑个案中的依据该信息而致使投资事件发生的概率、事件发展的可能性、信息对市场价格的影响等条件。最后,文章列举了世界其它国家和地区法律中的重大性标准。文章第四部分得出结论,我国应当采取应选择“投资者决策”为主“证券价格”标准为辅的重大性标准。首先,两种标准具有内在的统一性。其次,两种标准是相互补充的。再次,我国法律实践拓展了两种标准的适用范围。最后“投资者决策”标准相对于“市场价格”标准更具合理性。
[Abstract]:The standards for the identification of securities misrepresentation are not clearly stipulated in Chinese law. In legal practice, there is a need for a clear standard to regulate the behavior of false statements. This paper analyzes the standards adopted in the law and practice of our country for the identification of false statements. At the same time, it compares the standards in the laws of the world, especially the American law, and concludes that the laws of our country are worth drawing lessons from. The article is divided into four parts, the contents are as follows:. The first part of the article draws the difference between the criterion of materiality of fact and the criterion of materiality of result from the controversy of the theory of the criterion of false statement, and then analyzes the legal theory about these two standards of materiality. In the second part of the article, the author analyzes the standards of misrepresentation behavior and its materiality in Chinese law. To adopt the criteria of "investor decision" and "securities price", And has expanded the scope of application of these two standards in legal practice. In the third part, the author analyzes the three concepts of "significant fact" and "significant change" and "significant information" in the legislation of various countries. Secondly, it analyzes the legislation and jurisprudence of the United States. There are two aspects to the criteria for judging the materiality of information determined by the United States courts: on the one hand, from the perspective of rational investors, if an information is considered important by a rational investor, And will materially affect the investment decisions of rational investors, and the information can be considered significant. On the other hand, U.S. courts adopt a case-by-case attitude towards the application of materiality criteria. When using materiality criteria, they must take into account the probability of the occurrence of an investment event and the possibility of an event developing as a result of the information in the case. Finally, the paper enumerates the significant standards in the laws of other countries and regions in the world. Part 4th concludes that China should adopt the criterion of "investors' decision" as the main criterion of "securities price". Firstly, the two standards have inherent unity. The two standards complement each other. Thirdly, the legal practice of our country expands the scope of application of the two standards. Finally, the "investor decision" criterion is more reasonable than the "market price" standard.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】