证券虚假陈述重大性要件的再厘清:基于司法实践的批判性思考

Rethinking and Suggestion on the Judicial Acknowledgment of Materiality in Securities Fraud

《九民会议纪要》和部分司法实践关于证券虚假陈述重大性的认定,存在以下四个方面的问题。第一,投资者标准过于抽象,无助于法院审理案件。第二,虚假陈述是否具有重大性,仅仅是证监会等行政机关科以行政处罚的考量因素之一。虚假陈述即使不具有重大性,也可能被科以行政处罚。第三,不允许被告在虚假陈述民事诉讼中举证推翻行政处罚决定书所认定的基本事实,与现行法律规定和司法解释不符。第四,限制被告提出虚假陈述不具有重大性抗辩的机会,并不一定有利于中小投资者。在虚假陈述民事诉讼中,应当以价格标准——即虚假陈述被实施或者被揭示后的证券价格是否发生明显波动——来判断虚假陈述是否具有重大性。行政处罚决定书所认定的虚假陈述不必然具有重大性,法院在民事诉讼中应当进行独立判断。退一步讲,即使认为行政处罚决定书具有免证事实的效力,被告仍可以依据现行法律规定和司法解释举证虚假陈述不具有重大性。追究“首恶”责任,而非限制被告提出抗辩的机会,才是保护中小投资者的关键。

to be helpful in litigation.Secondly,whether securities fraud is material or not is just one consideration when an administrative agency,e.g.CSRC,imposes a administrative punishment.Even if the securities fraud is immaterial,defendants may still be punished.Thirdly,defendants are not allowed to refute the basic facts confirmed in an administrative punishment made by an administrative agency in civil cases,which is not consist with legislative and judicial explanations.Last but not least,providing defendants little chance to refute securities fraud are immaterial is not good for ordinary investors as a whole.In civil litigations,whether securities fraud are material or not should be judged by price standard,namely,whether the securities price fluctuates after the securities fraud are implemented or disclosed.Since securities fraud confirmed in administrative punishment made by an administrative agency is not necessarily to be material and even if the facts are presumed exempting of proving,defendants still have the rights to prove that the securities fraud are immaterial according to legislative and judicial explanations in civil cases.Finding out who are really blamed for securities fraud instead of limiting defendants’rights is the right way to protect ordinary investors as a whole.