比较视野下证券虚假陈述的“重大性”认定  

Determination of“Materiality”in Securities False Statements from a Comparative Perspective

作　　者：张文蓬 ZHANG Wenpeng(Tianjin University of Commerce,Tianjin 300134,China)

机构地区：[1]天津商业大学,天津300134

出　　处：《山西财政税务专科学校学报》2024年第1期15-20,共6页Journal of Shanxi Finance & Taxation College

摘　　要：证券虚假陈述行为会严重侵害投资者的合法权益,是资本市场的典型违法形式。2022年初颁布的《关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》将信息披露义务人虚假陈述内容须具有“重大性”作为民事赔偿责任成立的基础与前提,明确“重大性”要件的重要地位,而目前我国对于虚假陈述“重大性”的认定存在立法二元化与司法认定标准不统一等两方面问题。通过梳理虚假陈述“重大性”两大标准在基本内容与基本理念方面的差异,借助近年来司法案例反映我国对于虚假陈述责任纠纷案件的裁判现状,最终提出完善我国证券虚假陈述“重大性”认定的意见,即首先应明确法院独立审查“重大性”要件的权能,在具体认定标准上应谨慎适用“价格敏感性标准”,并重视“投资人决策标准”的补位作用。Securities false statements can severely infringe upon investors’legitimate rights and interests,representing a typical form of violation in the capital market.The“Several Provisions on Hearing Civil Compensation Cases of Securities Market False Statements”issued at the beginning of 2022 establish the necessity of“materiality”in the false statements of the obligors for the establishment of civil compensation liability.This underscores the significant status of the“materiality”requirement.Currently,China faces two main issues in determining the“materiality”of false statements:the dualism in legislation and the lack of uniform standards in judicial determination.By analyzing the differences in the basic content and concepts of the two major standards of“materiality”and reflecting on the current state of judicial rulings in disputes over liability for false statements through recent case studies,this paper ultimately suggests improvements for the determination of“materiality”in securities false statements in China.Specifically,it proposes that the courts should clearly have the authority to independently review the“materiality”requirement.In terms of specific determination standards,the“Price Sensitivity Standard”should be applied cautiously,and the compensatory role of the“Investor Decision Standard”should be emphasized.

关 键 词：虚假陈述 重大性 价格敏感性标准 投资人决策标准 

分 类 号：F830.91[经济管理—金融学]