|
| 证券虚假陈述民事责任的构成要件与责任分担——以发行人及中介机构的差异化归责为视角 |
| Constituent Elements and Allocation of Civil Liability for Securities Misrepresentation: A Study on Differentiated Liability Attribution Between Issuers and Intermediaries |
| 投稿时间：2025-04-10 |
| DOI：10.16018/j.cnki.cn32-1499/c.202504005 |
| 中文关键词: 证券虚假陈述 构成要件 中介机构责任 差异化归责 比例连带责任 |
| 英文关键词: securities misrepresentation constituent elements liability of intermediaries differentiated liability attribution proportional joint liability |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 11 |
| 全文下载次数: 13 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 《证券法》第八十五条和第一百六十三条对证券虚假陈述民事责任的规定较为原则,导致审判实践在证券虚假陈述民事责任的认定上存在标准不统一、论证理由不充分等问题。证券虚假陈述民事责任的认定应以发行人及中介机构等两类主体的差异化归责为进路予以考量。对发行人而言,其责任的成立应满足损害、侵害行为和交易因果关系三个构成要件;其中侵害行为还需符合"重大性"标准。对中介机构而言,其责任构成要件应根据主观过错的不同予以分别考量。当中介机构故意时,其与发行人之间的行为构成典型的共同侵权,此时仅需满足中介机构"与发行人之间存在意思联络"之要件即可证成其责任的成立。当中介机构过失时,其与发行人之间的行为构成客观的共同侵权,此时需满足"客观的共同侵权"的全部构成要件方能证成中介机构责任的成立。在责任分担方面,中介机构过失情况下,侵权法上的"部分连带责任"理论可以为审判实践中的"比例连带责任"做出合理的解释,从而也为规范层面中介机构"全有"或"全无"的连带责任分担方式提供了理论上的协调路径。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| 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. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|