| The provisions of Articles 85 and 163 of the Securities Law on civil liability for securities misrepresentation are relatively general, resulting in issues including inconsistent standards and insufficient reasoning in the determination of civil liability for securities misrepresentation in judicial practice. The determination of civil liability for securities misrepresentation should be considered based on the differentiated liability of two types of subjects: issuers and intermediaries. For issuers, the establishment of their liability should meet the three constituent elements of damage, infringing act, and causal relationship of transaction; among which, the infringing act also needs to meet the "materiality" standard. For intermediaries, the constituent elements of their liability should be considered separately based on varying degrees of subjective fault. When intermediaries are intentional, their conduct with issuers constitutes typical joint tortious acts, requiring only the element of "existence of intentional connection between the intermediaries and the issuer" to establish liability. When intermediaries are negligent, their conduct with issuers constitutes objective joint tortious acts, necessitating fulfillment of all constituent elements of "objective joint tortious acts" to establish liability. As for responsibility sharing in cases of negligence by intermediaries, the theory of "partial joint liability" in tort law can provide a reasonable explanation for the "proportional joint liability" in judicial practice, thereby also offering a theoretical coordination path for the "all-or-nothing" joint liability sharing approach at the normative level for intermediaries. |