Judicial Intervention Of Stock Exchange Self-regulation

The Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China Article102stipulates that“Theterm “stock exchange” refers to a legal person that provides the relevant place and facilitiesfor concentrated securities trading, organizes and supervises the securities trading and appliesa self-regulated administration.” In fact, litigation disputes because of the self-regulation ofstock exchange is highlighted.Cases involving self-regulation of stock exchanges have someparticularity, in2005Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial interpretation of whichspecifically to appoint special court of competent jurisdiction。"The Supreme CourtCommunique", respectively, in2008and2009published cases involving self-regulation ofstock exchanges."Chinese Capital Market Report" released by China securities regulatorycommission, aimed at China’s capital market development strategy measures (2008-2020),proposed " a gradual improvement by the regulators, self-regulatory organizations, exchangestogether to form a multi-level regulatory system to improve regulatory efficiency."These aremade this article discuss on the judicial intervention in self-regulation of stock exchanges hada real social significance.In the first part, it introduces eight cases briefly,and anlayzes the bone of contention intheir. These eight cases mainly arranged in chronological order. Finally, it sums upcharacteristics shared bythese eight cases in these five aspects, i.e. the identity of the party,acts involved in the dissension, the power origin of stock exchanges’ such disputed act,theappearant wrong of stock exchanges’ such disputed act,and the prospect of such cases.In the second part, it addresses in four fasets on the necessity of the judicial interventionin self-regulation of stock exchanges. Firstly, it anlayes the structural conflact of interestsamong interest bodies stock exchanges, and these interest conflicts are not digested throughself-discipline, thus the Stock Exchanges’ self-regulation requires effective external control.External control methods, in addition to judicial intervention, include the executive,legislative and other aspects of control. The emergence of cases about stock exchanges’self-regulation engender the realistic need for judicial intervention.In the third part, it disscuses the propriety of judicial interventionin self-regulation ofstock exchanges. Based on the anlayze of the nature of judicial power is negative and neutral,comparative advantage of judicial intervention, and the experience of U.S. Courts’ long-termintervention in stock exchanges’ self-regulation, it argues that the role of the court so negative,passive and neutrality can maintaina more peaceful mind in the stock market, such amaterialistic space, and thus more properly weigh the benefits and achieve a recognized balance, which is very appropriate.In the fourth part, it disscuses the legitimacy of judicial intervention in self-regulation ofstock exchanges,on the basis of analysis and discussion combined by case studies, informs ofthe court and judicial interpretation. In this chapter, it focus on the facts of previouslymentioned inadmissible cases, looking for the court informs on such cases end up with"temporary inadmissible,"and evaluates the this justice policies. Thereafter,"The issues on thestock exchange on regulatory functions related lawsuits jurisdiction and admissibility by theSupreme People’s Court" released in2005. Although this provision has been carried intoexecution until the2007, it makes the judicial interventionin self-regulation of stockexchanges obtaind legitimacy.In the fifth part, relied on the aforementioned eight case, it analysis some issuses duringthe judicial intervention in stock exchanges’ self-regulation. First, whether the court acceptsuch cases. Then these cases should choose civil procedure or administrative procedure bydebating on the legal nature of the stock exchanges. And, there is a discussion about thejudicial review of the stock exchanges’ business rules. Finally, on the standard of the"supervision fault", the causal link between the behavior of stock exchanges’ self-regulationand the loss of personal investors, and the principle of caveat emptor, it discusses theattribution of responsibility.The sixth part summarizes the judicial philosophy of judicial intervention inself-regulation of stock exchangesin our country.