Research On The Boundary Of Sponsors’ Liablity Based On The Observation Of Domestic And Foreign Typical Cases Of Security Fraud

The China Securities Regulatory Commission formulated The Opinions Onfuture promoting the reform of IPO system on November30,2013, thus taking aimportant step on promoting the progress of changing IPO Approval System toRegistration System. Sponsor liability boundary has aroused widespread concern insocial community recently.In consideration of writer’s continued exposure to securities business during theperiod of internship and research in financial law, this paper analysis the sponsor’sliability boundary in three aspects, including the relation between supervisionauthorities and sponsors, the relationship between sponsors and other intermediaryagencies, and the relationship between sponsor institutions and sponsorrepresentatives. Those analyses relate to the history, values and responsibility sourcesof the sponsor. This paper studies the domestic and foreign typical securities fraudcases since the founding of sponsor system, and then introduces the situation ofdefinition on the sponsor’s liability boundary in China mainland. The paper putsforward proposals to improve the definition on the sponsor’s liability boundary afterthe comparison of different patterns around the world. The First Chapter is on the causes of situation of definition on the sponsor’sliability boundary in China mainland, and then analysis them from the perspective ofthe history, values and responsibility sources of the sponsor.The Second Chapter is on the domestic and foreign typical securities fraud caseshappened in recent years. The paper summarizes the situation of definition on thesponsor’s liability boundary in China mainland by analyzing the liability involved inthose cases.The Third Chapter puts forward some questions concerning confusion of thesponsor’s liability boundary, including the responsibilities dislocation betweensupervision authorities and sponsors, the deadlock between sponsors and otherintermediary agencies, the lack of independent verification capabilities under theDouble-Sponsorship Pattern.The Fourth Chapter is on the comparison of different patterns around the worldbased on study of some typical securities fraud cases, and then pick up some usefulpoints from the patterns of the U.S.,UK, Hong Kong and other countries.The Fifth Chapter puts forward proposals to improve the definition on thesponsor’s liability boundary in China mainland, including clearly defining the liabilityboundary between supervision authorities and sponsors, the liability boundarybetween sponsors and other intermediary agencies, and the liability boundary betweensponsor institutions and sponsor representatives.