頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論證券交易法第20條之1之功過得失=A Critique Study on the Article 20-1 of the Securities Exchange Act |
---|---|
作 者 | 莊永丞; | 書刊名 | 月旦財經法雜誌 |
卷 期 | 36 2015.05[民104.05] |
頁 次 | 頁47-70 |
分類號 | 563.51 |
關鍵詞 | 證券詐欺; 不法意圖; 比例責任; 絕對責任; 未必故意; Fraud; Recklessness; Scienter; Proportionate liability; Reliance; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 系爭公司之證券「持有人」,因欠缺交易因果關係,不得為證券交易法第20條之1的請求權主體。有關持有人之規定,應儘速刪除。其次,證券交易法第20條之1,基本上為流通市場之規範,不可貿然移植第32條初級市場之規範,有關發行人、董事長與總經理無過失責任之規定,應予刪除,以免造成濫訴風潮。再者,該條第5項會造成過失詐欺之謬誤且比例損害賠償責任並無學理基礎,均應儘早刪除。 |
英文摘要 | In private party litigation under Article 20-1, the plaintiff generally must prove that he or she reasonably relied upon the defendants fraudulent financial reports. The holder of a security cannot bring the suit because he or she has not actually bought or sold a security. In addition, Article 20-1 is a provision under secondary market. There is no asymmetric information between the buyer and the seller in the secondary market. Hence, the imposition of a strict liability under Article 20-1 for the issuer, chairman, and C.E.O. is not reasonable. The author argues that negligence standard may not be the appropriate standard under Article 20-1. Lowering the standard from scienter to negligence, not only might increase the number of lawsuits filed, but also cause the standard toward a strict liability. The proportion liability is lack of any legal theory to support. To sum up, the Article 20-1 should be reformed. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。