| Securities Civil Liability for false representation system has been established for12years in our country. For the companies that implemented securities Misrepresentation, after the Securities and Futures Commission, the administrative punishment of the Ministry of Finance and the People’s Procuratorate criminal prosecution, investors can legally bring a civil action. Judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court introduced and modified in2005, the "Securities Act" law in the safeguard investor’s civil interests played an important role, and the role is played by the effect of social supervision violations of the securities market, and the Securities false statements deter the behavior implementation. However, after12years of legal practice, securities system of civil liability for false statements also revealed some problems, first one is unscientific type, under the substantive law and imperfections, causing investors to safeguard civil rights suffered compensation losses identified difficult problems; secondly, the unreasonable procedural law caused Securities false statement in a civil action for damages trial period, the problem of the high cost of litigation; Thirdly, Intermediate People’s Court of the People’s Court in China lack mass litigation trial experience and the court’s own software and hardware construction lag as well; With China’s economic development, population differentiation, the deepening of social change, the way to solve the securities false statement cases of civil disputes is not as rich as the reality needs.Having a comprehensive understanding of the problem needs to do research about securities system of civil liability for false statements exist legal effect of this system. It is to obtain objective and comprehensive understanding of the important method by empirical research. In empirical research, administrative penalties SFC book as a data source to collect, to Statistics157listed companies in the implementation of the Securities Misrepresentation in12years, to investigate whether these enterprises receive investor Civil Procedure, the use of statistical basicthe list of China’s12years, the number of false statements enterprises change, civil litigation and compensation of the situation. Through empirical research, we can discover the existence of our securities system of civil liability for false statements. Which, due to China’s securities false statements Civil aging2years, especially in the article set out in the last two years (2011,2012) the misrepresentations List remind investors’rights. In addition, the empirical study about such civil liability system, mainly in the United States, Germany, Japan, as a template. It is advised to find Securities Civil Liability for false statements to achieve a better country, through research, analyze them learn, help enhance the level of law in China.It is recommend to find evidence for false statements in the existence of China’s Securities Civil Liability on the basis of the analysis. To solve the problem, we had better analyze the problem and find out reasons. Analyzing and learning from academic research in China, we can find China’s Securities Civil Liability for false statements prosecuted difficult lies in the trial court level; Most of the characteristics of the separate litigation with a joint action is not suited Securities false statement in a civil action for damages a small, non-litigation system in China not yet large-scale usage to resolve civil disputes of the securities and false statements over-concentration in the People’s Court. Supreme People’s Court promulgated the "Caused by False Statement on admissibility securities market tort disputes related issues notice" and "triggered by a false statement on the trial of the securities market because of a number of provisions of the civil compensation cases. However, there are still legally imperfect and unscientific. On the other hand, in the pastl2years, the modification and improvement of the system of civil liability for misrepresentation of the securities has not followed the up-to-date trends and could not be consistent with the increasingly developed securities market. In fact it was slightly modified in the Securities Act of2005only.We can prescribe the right medicine if we can find the exact reasons for these problems. Meanwhile we can also improve our securities system of civil liability for false statements and China’s securities false statement in a civil dispute some of the problems encountered in reality.First of all, on the basis of empirical research, we should learn from the successful experience in hearing Securities of false statements civil action for damages within the past12years. These successful experiences include the case of Oriental Electronics Technology, Daqing Lianyi case, Dongsheng case. Some of the successful experience of these cases has been partly used in court, but some experiences have not yet promoted. It is expected that these experiences can help to enhance the level of the people’s court trial.What is more, the United States is a world leader in processing securities false statement in a civil dispute. The main weapon the U.S. investors use to protect their rights is Group litigation. We can learn from Litigation Group, but we should also pay attention to the different national conditions and the problems that were exposed in Litigation Group. In this regard, China needs to focus on a number of uncertain representative action systems.Besides, the establishment of a non-litigious way. Dispute resolution out of court (ADR:ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) has been widely used. On the premise of the weakness of the court, the introduction of a system of arbitration and reconciliation is a matter of reality and bear long-term significance.Finally, we should improve the demerits of legislation on the substantive law. And then, the main task is to calculate the loss and confirm the ways of compensation as well as date of the determination.Particularly, many scholars seriously criticized the pre-program and the majority propose to repeal it. Through researches, we ca find thatpre-program is not in the abstract design but based on natural legislators’ considerations, however, we can not ignore the fact that the pre-program legislations do have certain problems. Could we find a compromise? Fairly speaking, there is no need to abolish Pre-procedure. What we should do is to modify and innovate. The first innovation is to expand the scope of the pre-procedure; the second goes to a pre-procedure evidence of effectiveness; the third innovation, investors should be allowed to directly prosecute to modify civil liability attributable principles. |
PDF Full Text Request