Research On The System Of Compensation Amount Deduction In False Statement Securities Litigation

Securities lawsuits involving false statements often involve hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs,and the amount of compensation claimed is often hundreds of millions.For example,the first case of a class lawsuit,the Kang Mei Pharmaceutical Misrepresentation Case,involves more than 50000 investors,and the judgment pays a total of over 2 billion yuan for investment losses.Therefore,in the process of judicial adjudication,if the judge slightly deviates from the calculation of damages for investors,either it will harm the legitimate rights and interests of large-scale investors,or it will destroy the survival foundation of listed companies.It can be seen that judicial personnel should calculate the investment difference losses as objectively,accurately,fairly,and impartially as possible,and determine the deduction ratio of the compensation amount.However,currently,in China’s legal system related to securities misrepresentation litigation,there is no reasonable and clear procedural system and substantive handling rules for the deduction of compensation amounts.From the trial situation of a large number of cases,it can be found that the current legal provisions related to the deduction of compensation amounts have lagged or are relatively principled and abstract,unable to one-on-one address complex practical issues and solve them.Therefore,different judges exercise their discretion,The adoption of different solutions in similar cases has led to frequent issues and disputes in judicial practice,which has led to a lot of litigation burden on the judge,the plaintiff,and the defendant.The purpose of this article is to summarize and clarify the difficult issues and seek norms and uniformity at the legal system level.The first chapter of this article traces back to the source,analyzes the origin and legal basis of the compensation deduction system,and answers the question of why the ultimate compensation amount of the person responsible for misrepresentation should be reduced.Secondly,it will distinguish and analyze the theory and similar or related concepts on which compensation amount deduction is based,and combine the situation in China’s legislation and justice to define the research topic and scope of this article.Next,in Chapters 2 and 3,a very detailed introduction is given to a total of 52 false statement securities litigation cases involving amount deduction collected from public platforms in the past four years,presenting judicial practice in the form of charts,exploring the significance of relevant practices,and summarizing the problems in the liability deduction system based on the conclusions of the case study.These issues involve both procedural and substantive aspects-procedural issues such as the uneven distribution of the burden of proof for amount deductions and the unclear litigation status of professional measurement institutions,and substantive issues such as the lack of uniformity in the basis and methods for amount deductions.After identifying the problem,it is followed by finding a way to solve it.The final chapter of this article combines the burden of proof and expert witness systems and specific amount deduction methods in foreign legislation and judicial practice on false statements litigation,as well as the characteristics of the burden of proof distribution and judicial expertise and expert witness systems in China’s civil procedure law,and attempts to establish a path of optimizing procedural law and achieving procedural justice,thereby promoting the standardization of the substantive system and achieving relatively fair results,That is,to clarify the defendant’s evidentiary standards,refine the system of entrusting professional measurement institutions,and enhance the plaintiff’s ability to deeply participate in the amount deduction calculation process through the litigation representative system,thereby restricting the judge’s excessive discretion in selecting and determining the deduction method,deduction basis,and deduction factors,and standardizing the amount deduction system.