诉讼代表抑或诉讼担当?——从“康美案”看证券特别代表人诉讼制度

Litigation Representative or Litigation Responsibility? On the System of Special Representative Action in Securities Informed by “Kangmei Case”

“康美案”首次适用《证券法》第95条第3款规定之特别代表人诉讼,但此“代表人”是否属于传统代表人诉讼之理论范畴,对此需探讨第95条第1、2款与第3款之间的关系,并以诉讼担当理论为基础,揭开特别代表人诉讼之面纱——以诉讼代表之名,行诉讼担当之实。同时,对于法条之间的关系而言,第94条第3款与第95条第3款规定赋予投资者保护机构不同法律地位与身份,随着投资者保护机构的不断持股,第94条第3款规定的股东代位权诉讼,相较于特别代表人诉讼“高门槛”的特征以及“低回报率”的可能性,投资者保护机构作为股东代位公司参加诉讼显然在理论以及实践层面都更具优势。这种优势会导致程序选择上的一种必然趋势——特别代表人诉讼的适用,随着投资者保护机构积极持股,终会逐渐让位于股东代位权诉讼。

The“Kangmei case”is the first application of the special representative actions under Article 95,Paragraph 3 of the Securities Act.However,whether this“representative”belongs to the traditional representative actions theory requires an analysis of the relationship between Article 95,Paragraphs 1 and 2,and Paragraph 3,based on the doctrine of litigation responsibility,eventually unveiling the special representative actions:that is,conducting litigation responsibility under the name of litigation representative.At the same time,with regard to the relationship between the different provisions in the law,investor protection institutions are granted different legal status and identities in accordance with the provisions of Article 94,Paragraph 3 and Article 95,Paragraph 3.As the investor protection institutions continue to hold more shares,compared with the“high threshold”and“low return”of the special representative actions,it is obvious that the investor protection institutions have more advantages in theory and practice to participate in the actions as a shareholder subrogate company as stipulated in Article 94,Paragraph 3.These advantages will lead to an inevitable trend in the choice of procedure:The application of the special representative actions,with the active shareholding of the investor protection institutions,will eventually tend to give way to shareholder subrogation action.