证券中介机构虚假陈述比例连带责任形态研究
Research on the Proportionate Joint Liability Form for False Statements of Securities Issuance Intermediary Institutions
摘要: 证券虚假陈述责任本质上属于侵权责任,当中介机构与发行人在主观上存在共同故意时,构成共同侵权是显而易见的。但在实际情况中,中介机构对虚假陈述事实主要存在过失,如果此时要求其承担全部连带责任,显然有失公平。正是在这种情况下,现行司法实践出现了一种新的责任形态,即比例连带责任,这一责任形态突破了连带责任中各责任人需承担完全赔偿责任的原则。
Abstract: The liability for false statements in securities essentially falls under tort liability. When intermediaries and issuers share a common intention subjectively, it is obvious that they constitute joint tort. However, in actual situations, intermediaries are mainly at fault for false statements. If they are required to bear full joint and several liability at this time, it is clearly unfair. It is precisely in this context that a new form of liability has emerged in current judicial practice, namely, proportionate joint liability. This form of liability breaks through the principle that each responsible person in joint and several liability should bear full compensation liability.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
邢会强. 证券中介机构法律责任配置[J]. 中国社会科学, 2022(5): 85-102, 206.
|
|
[2]
|
杨立新. 环境侵权司法解释对分别侵权行为规则的创造性发挥——《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第3条解读[J]. 法律适用, 2015(10): 30-35.
|
|
[3]
|
杨城. 论我国虚假陈述民事责任主体的困境与创新[J]. 证券市场导报, 2017(7): 70-78.
|
|
[4]
|
刘磊. 虚假陈述连带赔偿责任分配的价值基础和实现标准[J]. 证券法苑, 2020, 30(3): 96-115.
|
|
[5]
|
王才伟. 论证券服务机构虚假陈述比例连带责任的分担[J]. 中国社会科学院大学学报, 2025, 45(5): 131-152, 179.
|
|
[6]
|
邹学庚. 虚假陈述比例连带责任的认定模式与体系展开[J]. 法学研究, 2023, 45(4): 131-151.
|
|
[7]
|
丁宇翔. 跨越责任鸿沟——共享经营模式下平台侵权责任的体系化展开[J]. 清华法学, 2019, 13(4): 112-129.
|
|
[8]
|
丁宇翔. 证券发行中介机构虚假陈述的责任分析——以因果关系和过错为视角[J]. 环球法律评论, 2021, 43(6): 156-171.
|
|
[9]
|
郭雳, 李逸斯. IPO中各中介机构的职责分配探析——从欣泰电气案议起[J]. 证券法苑, 2017, 23(5): 1-18.
|
|
[10]
|
李建伟, 李欢. 证券虚假陈述比例连带责任的理论证成及其修正适用[J]. 证券市场导报, 2023(8): 52-64.
|