检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]中国社会科学院法学研究所
出 处:《金融市场研究》2021年第8期108-114,共7页Financial Market Research
摘 要:在部分债券违约案件中,同时存在债券虚假陈述、欺诈发行的情形。投资者往往会诉请法院,要求发行人、证券中介服务机构等承担侵权责任。在对债券市场欺诈发行责任的认定中,法院往往简单适用原《证券法》(2005年修订)对股票的相关规定,忽视了债券法律关系及发行模式的特殊性。新《证券法》(2019年修订)一定程度上弥补了上述不足,根据注册制的要求修正了欺诈发行的认定标准。因此,本文建议在审理债券欺诈发行案件时,司法机关应考虑"从新"原则,适用新《证券法》的相关规定,同时应推进债券欺诈发行责任承担规则的完善。Bond defaults at times are due to misrepresentation or outright fraud, and in such cases, investors often turn to the courts to hold issuers, securities intermediaries and others liable. In the determination of liability for a fraudulent issuance in the bond market, the courts often ignore the special characteristics of bond issues and simply apply the relevant provisions of the Securities Law(2005 Revision) as originally drafted for stocks. The Securities Law(2019 Revision) to a certain extent remedies the aforementioned deficiency by amending the criteria for determining fraudulent issuance in accordance with the requirements of the bond registration system. This paper suggests that when hearing cases of fraudulent bond issuances, the courts should consider the "new" principle and apply the relevant provisions of the Securities Law(2019 Revision). They should also promote the improvement of the rules of liability for fraudulent issuance of bonds.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.117