金融危机以来美国证券自律监管的司法审查研究

Judicial Review of U.S. Securities Self-regulation Since the Financial Crisis

2007~2008年金融危机以来,美国证券自律监管组织遭遇的诉讼案件明显增多。证券自律监管纠纷主要集中在自律组织未能或不当履行监管职责、纪律处分措施及程序不当、创新业务和收费规则引起的争议、会员的信用管理以及对特定主体的信息公开(披露)等五个方面。总体而言,美国法院在决定是否介入证券交易所的自律监管时,仍然以自律组织享有绝对豁免权以及当事人是否穷尽救济作为考量前提,而在具体的案件审判中则倾向于审慎界定绝对豁免权的适用范围,要求绝对豁免权以及穷尽救济原则的适用应与自律监管密切相关。这些争议及判例为思考我国证券自律监管的优化和完善提供了参考借鉴,特别是在具体的司法政策层面,应当看到美国证券自律监管司法介入政策分别有其法源逻辑、结构逻辑和配套逻辑,在参考借鉴时应当审慎、有序推进。

Since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, in the U.S. securities markets, there has been a significant increase in the number of disputes regarding securities self-regulation. These disputes are mainly concentrated in five aspects, which are the SROs＇ failure to perform regulatory duties, inadequate disciplinary actions and proceedings, disputes over innovative business and charging rules, broker-dealers＇ registration infomlation, and evidence discovery. In general, when it comes to intervene in the SROs＇ self- regulation, the U.S. courts first need to consider whether the SROs enjoys absolute immunity and whether the litigants have exhausted remedies. The U.S. courts tend to carefully define the scope of absolute immunity in every single case, and stressed that absolute immunity and the principle of exhaustion should only apply to self-regulatory activities. These cases and controversies provide reference for thinking about the optimization and perfection of securities self-regulation in China. We must recognize that American judicial policy on securities self-regulation has inherent logics in terms of securities legislation, policy combination and supporting rules, and need to promote the reform of our judicial policy in a prudent and orderly manner.