全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

预测性信息“安全港”的司法检视与规则完善
Systematic Examination and Rule Improvement of the Predictive Information “Safe Harbor”

DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2024.12121058, PP. 7476-7484

Keywords: 预测性信息,证券虚假陈述,信息披露,免责事由
Predictive Information
, Securities False Statements, Information Disclosure, Exemption Clauses

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

安全港规则的引入明确了我国对预测性信息披露的基本态度,进而改变了既往证券信息披露的制度框架,使之由以披露意愿和披露形式为主的二元架构升级为以披露意愿、披露形式和披露内容为主的三维架构,在一定程度上促进了信息披露制度的完善,但也对信息披露监管提出了新的挑战。由于我国安全港规则仅为单独法条,关于该规则的适用前提、适用对象以及适用的除外情形等在理论和实践中存在一定模糊与争议。因此,需要明确安全港规则在信息披露体系中定位以及其相应的规则目的,同时,对预测性信息范围、风险提示与信息更正义务以及披露义务人主观心理进行展开探讨,从而为安全港规则在我国的司法适用实践中提供本土化指引。
The introduction of the safe harbor rule has clarified China’s basic attitude toward the disclosure of predictive information, thereby changing the previous framework of securities information disclosure. This change upgrades the framework from a binary structure focused primarily on disclosure intent and form to a ternary structure that also includes disclosure content. To some extent, this has promoted the improvement of the information disclosure system, but it has also presented new challenges to the regulation of information disclosure. Since China’s safe harbor rule is merely a single legal provision, there is considerable ambiguity and controversy regarding its applicability, applicable subjects, and exceptions in both theory and practice. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the positioning of the safe harbor rule within the information disclosure system and its corresponding regulatory objectives. This includes further examining the scope of predictive information, the obligations for risk warnings and information corrections, and the subjective mental states involved. Such examinations aim to provide judicial guidance for the localization and practical application of the safe harbor rule in China.

References

[1]  冯果, 左进玮. 证券信息披露的公共性品格及其法律实现[J]. 湖北社会科学, 2024(1): 138-148.
[2]  Kerr, J.E. (1987) A Walk through the Circuits: The Duty to Disclose Soft Information. Maryland Law Review, 46, 1071-1073.
[3]  曾洋. 证券法信息披露规则的体系解释[J]. 南大法学, 2024(1): 75-93.
[4]  程茂军. 试论上市公司自愿性信息披露的法律规制[J]. 证券法苑, 2017, 20(2): 176-201.
[5]  缪因知. 论证监会信息披露规则的不足[J]. 法治研究, 2016(2): 141-150.
[6]  高振翔. 证券预测信息“安全港”制度: 美国经验与中国镜鉴[J]. 证券市场导报, 2023(6): 15-27, 38.
[7]  汤欣, 李卓卓. 新修虚假陈述民事赔偿司法解释评析[J]. 法律适用, 2022(3): 61-72.
[8]  徐文鸣, 刘圣琦. 新《证券法》视域下信息披露“重大性”标准研究[J]. 证券市场导报, 2020(9): 70-78.
[9]  王洋. 我国预测性信息安全港规则的实践与演化——以1959份裁判文书为视角[J]. 证券法律评论, 2023(0): 89-117.
[10]  齐萌, 韩晴晴. 预测性信息披露背景下的安全港规则: 适用障碍与制度完善[J]. 上海财经大学学报, 2024, 26(2): 137-152.
[11]  Olazabal, A.M. (2011) False Forward-Looking Statements and the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor. Indiana Law Journal, 86, 602-603.
[12]  蒋尧明. 证券市场虚假陈述民事责任研究: 回顾与展望[J]. 会计之友, 2024(1): 2-8.
[13]  张保生, 牛馨雨. 预测性信息披露责任与安全港制度探究[J]. 财经法学, 2023(5): 18-34.
[14]  Silk, G.H. and Josefson, A. (2017) In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. 865F. 3d1130, 1146-1148 (9th Cir. 2017).
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2017/07/31/in-re-quality-systems-inc-securities-litigation/?slreturn=2024122701348
[15]  朱锦清. 证券法学[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2019: 96-97.
[16]  In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114F. 3d1410 (3dCir.1997).
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/burlington-coat-factory-securities-894068685
[17]  Pyun, S. (2022) Updating the Duty to Update: Harmonizing a Continuous Duty with a Periodic Disclosure Regime. Columbia Business Law Review, 2, 1046-1047.
https://doi.org/10.52214/cblr.v2021i2.8923

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133