解读《证券法》关于市场操纵的法律规范

我国<证券法>对市场操纵认定的规定,主要集中在<证券法>第71条中.该条主要采取列举式对操纵行为的类型作了规定,同时也预设了一些认定市场操纵的条件.由于我国是成文法国家,行政和司法机关在执法过程中必须严格依照法律规定审裁断案,不允许超越或篡改法律,因此对<证券法>市场操纵规范的解读实际上就关系到我国司法和行政执法过程中对市场操纵的具体认定,具有重要的理论和现实意义.     

新法规盯住黑庄八宗罪

《证券法》以及正在试行的《证券市场操纵行为认定办法》(以下简称《办法》)共规定了对连续交易、约定交易、自买自卖、蛊惑交易、抢先交易、虚假申报、特定价格、特定时段交易等8类市场操纵行为的认定:行为一,连续交易操纵。《证券法》第77条第一款规定:"单独或者通过     

澳大利亚关于市场操纵的认定及处罚

澳大利亚联邦<公司法>和<澳大利亚证券与投资委员会法>的颁布,确立了澳大利亚对市场操纵行为监管的基本法律框架.本文对澳大利亚市场操纵的认定、监管体制、调查与处罚机制进行了初步研究,总结出澳大利亚市场操纵监管的规律和趋势,以期对中国证券市场的监管实践提供有益的经验.     

内幕交易罪的司法困境及出路研究

近年来内幕交易案件频发,无论是"杭萧钢构案",还是"上海祖龙内幕交易案"都在司法认定方面引起了理论和实务界的较大争议。这充分表明,在认定内幕交易罪的司法实践中仍然存在很多待解的难题。只有在对这些司法难题进行深入剖析的基础上,重构内幕信息的认定标准、改善内幕交易行为的取证路径、强化内幕交易的执法力度、完善机制设计,才能破解司法难题,维护证券市场的公平公正,保障证券法律法规得以遵守和执行。     

美国证券域外纠纷诉权新解

2010年6月美国联邦最高法院审结的莫里森案,是美国证券法发展史上的重要节点,代表了全球化背景下最大资本市场在处理涉外欺诈纠纷问题上的转向。以往的行为和影响标准被否定,交易标准得到强调,《证券交易法》第10(b)条的适用范围被限缩,存托凭证和国外基础证券受到区别对待。此后一年间,尽管不无争议,莫里森案判决和交易标准被下级法院广泛援引,并经受住了Dodd-Frank法案的考验。由此释放出的信号包括,美国有意愿加强公共执法和国际多边合作。     

内幕交易的压制与暗流:美国预定交易计划规则修法镜鉴

美国内幕交易规制涵盖于证券反欺诈体系之下,并通过交易计划规则为内部人士证券交易松绑.随着市场主体的逐利性挖掘与执法实践的深入,交易计划规则逐渐被内部人士通过巧妙信息披露、策略性修改和终止以及多样化操作等方法所滥用,成为隐蔽型内幕交易的合规倚靠.美国新法案旨在探求内部人士所持证券流动性与严格监管内幕交易行为之间的平衡点,但规则变革仍面临现实利益考验.在依法从严打击证券违法活动的浪潮下,我国《证券法》以及相关司法解释应当从现有减持规定重置、界定标准划分、强制延迟期施加与严格信息披露等方向入手,完善预定交易计划规则,以使其为内幕交易规制体系服务.     

加密货币与美国证券法域外适用：实践及中国因应

加密货币自产生以来常被用于投资，其交易具有隐匿性、不可逆性及无国界性等特点，存在诸多风险，因此多国陆续出台监管政策予以应对。美国在实践中主要采用豪威标准认定加密货币证券性质，同时通过灵活解释及运用各种域外管辖标准的方式逐步强化联邦证券法的域外效力。在数字经济时代，为提升系统性金融风险防范能力，维护我国证券市场秩序与投资者权益，并进一步推动我国证券市场国际化，有必要全面优化我国过于原则化的证券法域外适用制度。具体而言，应从立法角度扩大证券法的适用范围，从司法角度充分发挥人民法院的解释职能，从执法角度强化跨境证券监管的国际合作。     

新《证券法》下证券欺诈集体诉讼的司法审查——以美国《联邦民事诉讼法》第23条为范本

全面实行发行注册制容易引发虚假陈述、操纵市场等证券群体性纠纷。2020年新《证券法》第95条规定了普通代表人诉讼和特别代表人诉讼并驾齐驱的“双轨制”诉讼，克服了集体行动难题和公共执法不足的两大流弊。然而，作为我国首例适用特别代表人诉讼的康美药业案，并未提及“双轨制”诉讼程序转换的司法审查要求，无疑会产生诉讼选择困惑、审判实务疑难、法律规范难以预期等结构性矛盾。对此，我国亟须以美国《联邦民事诉讼法》第23条为借鉴，完善中国式证券欺诈集体诉讼的默示要件、先决要件和维持要件。其中，对于先决要件的实质审查，法院应重点关注众多性中的非数量要素、聚焦“定性而非定量”的共同性问题、把握典型性中的诉请本身是否利益一致、判断充分性是否嵌入正当程序之中。同时，法院也要对投资者的声明退出加以审查，避免道德风险引发“诉讼失灵”。     

中国特色证券特别代表人诉讼制度的完善——基于公共执法与私人执法的趋同

《证券法》的执法模式分为公共执法和私人执法，两种执法模式并不是非此即彼的。美国因私人执法泛滥，而逐渐采取抑制的趋势。我国由于公共执法过于强势，而逐渐探索私人诉讼的可能性。从我国证券群体纠纷解决机制发展的历史经验来看，由于我国重行政轻司法的特点，建立中国特色证券集团诉讼是路径依赖下的必然选择。结合实践经验来看，我国证券集团诉讼的主要功能应定位为震慑。相关程序规则较为模糊，应予细化。投服中心可探索公私合作模式，以解决激励不足的问题。     

论滥用高频交易的刑法规制——以伊世顿公司操纵期货市场案为例

随着伊世顿公司被起诉滥用高频交易操纵期货市场,滥用高频交易正式进入刑法领域的本文规制范围.由于滥用高频交易的特殊性,对于如何规制此类新型操纵证券、期货市场行为存在较大的分歧.结合伊世顿案的具体案情、滥用高频交易具体特征以及操纵证券、期货市场罪的实质,探讨滥用高频交易的刑法规制,滥用高频交易能够纳入《刑法》第182条操纵证券、期货市场罪兜底条款的规制范围内,建议及时完善相应的司法解释明确滥用高频交易的规制范围.     

THE ROLE OF AUDITOR CULPABILITY IN NAMING AUDITOR DEFENDANTS IN UNITED STATES SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS

Arguments for passage by the United States Congress of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 1995 (Reform Act), as well as the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 1998, center on two allegations. First, that there was a general lack of merits (i.e. management culpability did not matter) in pre-Reform Act private securities class actions. Second, that nonculpable auditors were routinely named defendants in these lawsuits. A theoretical framework consisting of the constructs auditor culpability, management culpability, and nonculpability is used to investigate whether nonculpable auditors were routinely named defendants in these lawsuits. Empirical evidence based on 446 securities lawsuits filed from April 1992 to April 1995 in federal and state courts against United States companies suggests that nonculpable auditors were not routinely named defendants in these lawsuits.     

海外内幕交易主体的规则和司法判例研究及借鉴

文章分析了美国《证券交易法》规则10b5—2的合理性和缺陷，同时参照美国、台湾和日本的证券立法实践，对我国《证券法》中有关内幕交易主体的规定存在的缺陷提出了修改和完善的建议。我国《证券法》应将家庭成员、发行人和外部信息制造者纳入内幕交易的主体范围，这对于正确理解和完善内幕交易的法律规则将起到积极作用。     

Contrasting Worldviews at Bank and Securities Market Regulators

Bank and securities regulators operate with different attitudes about the appropriate regulation of financial institutions and markets. Bank regulators’ prudential oversight protects depositors from worrying about the repayment of their bank claims. In contrast, securities market regulators tend to presume that security markets (almost) always clear quickly at prices close to the asset's fundamental value. These regulators seek to assure full disclosure of information, which facilitates active securities trading. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investor protection duties are tailored to the financial sophistication of individual investors.     

美国加强金融监管改革限制银行从事自营交易的动向和启示

为配合多德弗兰克法案实施,美国证券交易委员会（sEc）、商品期货交易委员会（cFTc）等监管机构分别组织制“沃克尔法则”细则征求意见稿,此举引起各国政府和市场机构的广泛关注。文章概括了“沃克尔法则”细则征求意见稿中限制银行从事自营交易的主要内容,分析了其可能产生的潜在影响,整理了市场相关反应与评价,结合其对中资银行经营、特别是金融市场业务发展带来的影响与启示进行了分析和思考,并提出相关政策建议。     

Securitization markets and central banking: An evaluation of the term asset-backed securities loan facility

In response to the near collapse of US securitization markets in 2008, the Federal Reserve created the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, which offered non-recourse loans to finance investors’ purchases of certain highly rated asset-backed securities. We study the effects of this program and find that it lowered interest rate spreads for some categories of asset-backed securities but had little impact on the pricing of individual securities. These findings suggest that the program improved conditions in securitization markets but did not subsidize individual securities. We also find that the risk of loss to the US government was small.     

From subordination to parity: an international comparison of equity securities law claims in insolvency proceedings

Securities law claims in insolvency proceedings raise important questions of allocation of risk and remedies. In the ordinary course of business, equity claims come last in the hierarchy of claims during insolvency. What is less clear is whether this should encompass claims arising from the violation of public statutes designed to protect equity investors. Discerning the optimal allocation of risk is a complex challenge if one is trying to maximize the simultaneous advancement of securities law and insolvency law public policy goals. From a securities law perspective, there must be confidence in meaningful remedies for capital markets violations if investors are to continue to invest. From an insolvency perspective, creditors make their pricing and credit availability choices based on certainty regarding their claims and shifting those priorities may affect the availability of credit. The critical question is the nature of the claim advanced by the securities holder and whether subordination of securities law claims gives rise to inappropriate incentives for corporate officers within the insolvency law regime. A comparative analysis reveals that the U.S. has provided a limited statutory exception to complete subordination through the fair funds provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by allowing SEC claims for penalties and disgorgement to rank equally with unsecured claims even though the funds are distributed to shareholders. The U.K. and Australian schemes permit shareholders to claim directly as unsecured creditors for fraudulent acts and misrepresentation by the issuer. In contrast, Canadian law is underdeveloped in its treatment of such claims. The paper canvasses the policy options available to reconcile securities law and insolvency law claims, including a discussion of the appropriate gatekeeping role for regulatory authorities and the courts, and the need for a framework that offers fair and expeditious resolution of such claims. If the public policy goal of both securities law and insolvency law is to foster efficient and cost-effective capital markets, it seems that the systems need to be better reconciled than currently. The paper also examines the codified response to the time and resources consumed in various common law tracing claims by customers in a securities firm insolvency. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

IFRS Developments in the USA and EU,and Some Implications for Australia

There have been several developments recently, both in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), which will have consequences in Australia. The two major developments in the US are the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to drop the reconciliation requirement for foreign registrants that adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the serious consideration that the SEC is currently giving to allow US publicly traded companies to adopt IFRS. The developments in the EU involve its ever‐lengthening endorsement process and the increasing pressure being brought on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its oversight body, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) trustees, to alter their composition and the character of their operations. At the same time, there has been the FASB's appeal to the EU to accept IFRS without any endorsement process. The developments in the US have been lauded by the IASB and in Europe. They represent an impressive vote of confidence in the IASB and in the efforts being made by national standard setters and securities market regulators around the world. The US has already taken a long stride towards joining the more than 110 countries and other jurisdictions that have committed themselves to allow or require the use of IFRS for some or all reporting entities.     

Does portfolio margining make borrowing more attractive?

This paper investigates the effects of a change in the margin rules of the U.S. financial securities markets. These rules determine how much investors can borrow to leverage their investments. Since the 1929 stock market crash, margin loans have been tightly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Act Regulation T. Between 2005 and 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission modified these margin rules because they were perceived as not adequately reflecting investment risk. The amended rules have made it more attractive for investors to borrow by opening new margin accounts and diversifying their investment positions. This paper tests the hypothesis that the change in the margin rules has increased margin debt across the U.S. securities markets. It provides statistical evidence that this structural change can be dated to the amendments in the rules.     

Do asset backed securities ratings matter on average?

This paper assesses the impact of asset backed ratings on the Merrill Lynch US Asset Backed Securities and Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Index (CABs index) over a period January 1998 through to February 2010. In particular, we examine the relationship between ratings changes of the asset backed securities and the CABS index return. We further investigate how macroeconomic variables affect the relation between change in ratings and the CABS index return. We find that on their own, ratings of assets backed securities do matter to the CABS index return. However, controlling for economic factors appears to reduce the impact of the ratings changes on the CABS index return.