证券虚假陈述案中中介机构责后追偿问题研究

Research on the Issue of Recovery After Assuming Liability of Intermediaries in Securities Misrepresentation Cases

2022年最高人民法院颁布的《关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》在明确中介机构承担连带责任后享有追偿权的同时,也进一步将《证券法》第85、163条所称的“过错”区分为故意及过失两种情形,试图与《九民纪要》《审计侵权规定》《债券纪要》等文件中对责任承担与主观状态相匹配的要求相呼应。依据“权责一致”“过罚得当”的责任承担要求,司法实践中虽将《民法典》第178条分化出比例连带责任这一特殊类型,但其并非是最终责任的判定,无法解决内部责任的划分问题。比例的效力仅对外、不对内在满足《证券法》第85、163条关于连带责任要求的同时,又作出区别于传统的以全部债务对外承担连带责任的判定,可以避免按份责任制度被架空。此外,中介机构追偿权的行使需要充分尊重委托人的独立法人地位,明确中介机构是否在对内关系上属于共同侵权人,并结合司法实践将主观状态的过失进一步细分为重大过失和一般过失。

In 2022,the Supreme People's Court promulgated the Several Provisions on Misrepresentation,while clarifying that intermediaries have the right of recourse after assuming joint and several liability,and further distinguishing the"fault"referred to in Articles 85 and 163 of the Securities Law into two situations:"intentional"and"negligent",in an attempt to echo the requirements of the Minutes of the Ninth People's Republic of China,the Provisions on Audit Infringement,the Minutes of Bonds and other documents that the assumption of liability should be matched with the subjective state.Although Civil Code distinguishes Article 178 into a special type of proportional joint and several liability in judicial practice,it is not the determination of ultimate liability and cannot solve the problem of division of internal liability.The so-called proportional effect is only external and not internal,which can not only meet the requirements of articles 85 and 163 of the Securities Law on joint and several liability,but also make a judgment that is different from the traditional joint and several liability of all debts,and at the same time avoid the system of share liability being hollowed out.In addition,the exercise of the right of recourse of intermediaries needs to fully respect the independent legal personality of the client,clarify whether the intermediary is a joint tortfeasor in terms of internal relations,and further subdivide the subjective state of negligence into gross negligence and general negligence in combination with judicial practice.