財務報告不實因果關係之再建構

Reconstructing the Causation Requirements of Fraudulent Financial Reporting

陳威達(Wei-Ta Chen)

指導教授 ： 邵慶平

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700640

摘要

財務報告不實之因果關係，除於民事責任之成立上，扮演構成要件之角色，有關因果關係之判斷與證明，亦涉及了諸多法律政策之思維。為釐清財報不實於我國法下之因果關係樣貌，本文自財報不實之損害賠償責任制度出發，勾勒因果關係之類型、意義與證明之困境。接著，借鏡美國法之實務以及學說，並自行為財務學之觀點，探討財報不實之因果關係問題。此外，因我國近年來業已累積大量之團體訴訟判決，故本文另嘗試將團體訴訟判決進行歸納。最後，嘗試重新建構我國法下之財報不實因果關係。
　　本文第一章為緒論。第二章中，有鑑於我國證券交易法制定之初，大幅參考美國法之規定，是以，本文在分別勾勒美國法上證券集體訴訟制度，以及損害賠償之規範後，進一步地將我國之財報不實團體訴訟制度以及相關民事規範之性質、構成要件以及法律效果，進行介紹。在經過分析與討論後，本文進一步主張，財報不實中之因果關係要件，應區分為「交易因果關係」與「損失因果關係」，且此二者除係證券交易法之損害賠償請求權之要件外，亦應作為民法及公司法相關請求權之要件。
　　本文第三章則討論美國法上之證券詐欺因果關係之發展。就交易因果關係之部分，最初係以隱匿之事項具備重大性，即可推定因果關係之存在。隨後，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院間，逐漸發展成以不實資訊是否具備重大性，進而適用詐欺市場理論推定交易因果關係。於1988年時，美國聯邦最高法院正式地於Basic案中，以效率市場假說為基礎，適用詐欺市場理論以推定交易因果關係，此一見解復於2014年時，再次地於Halliburton案中受到聯邦最高法院的維持。另就損失因果關係之部分，若以2005年聯邦最高法院之Dura案作為分水嶺，於Dura案前，損失因果關係之證明於聯邦法院間，存有寬嚴不同之標準。而於Dura案中，聯邦最高法院則正式地拒絕，藉由灌水股價此種寬鬆標準，作為損失因果關係證明之方法，惟聯邦最高法院於判決中，並未敘明究竟應採取何種標準，以致於下級法院間，迄今尚未有一致性之見解。而於第三章之末處，鑒於詐欺市場理論，和事前觀點認定損失因果關係之寬鬆標準，其理論基礎均係建構在效率市場假說上，準此，本文嘗試地藉由行為財務學，就該等因果關係理論進一步地分析與檢討。
　　於第四章中，本文將財團法人證券投資人及期貨交易人保護中心成立起，至2016年12月31日止之團體訴訟判決進行分析、比較與歸納，並整理於本文所示附錄。就結論而言，首先，我國司法實務中，多未將因果關係區分為「交易因果關係」與「損失因果關係」。再者，本文除就推定因果關係之相關立論基礎討論外，經分析得出詐欺市場理論於我國實務之發展上，效率市場之標準即有所不同；更另有法院於判決中，提出效率市場之判斷標準；此外，於效率市場上，我國實務則特別強調專業投資人所扮演之角色及功能。就推定因果關係之立論基礎上，除前開所述之詐欺市場理論外，我國法院另普遍援引民事訴訟法第277條，作為推定因果關係之依據。而就因果關係推定之相關要件，亦與美國法之要件未盡一致，各有寬嚴不同之見解。對稱於前揭部分，本文另就未採取因果關係推定立場之裁判，就其相關之立論基礎進行探討；此外，在此等見解上，則其因果關係應如何證明，亦有各種不同之標準。
　　於第五章中，本文嘗試立於美國之實務與學者見解，以及我國司法實務與學者之說明，就交易因果關係與損失因果關係之問題，提出自身之看法，以重新建構我國財報不實之因果關係全貌。於交易因果關係之部分，本文主張，基於維護證券交易法之立法目的，並強化繼續公開原則，應採取交易因果關係推定之立場，而其於實定法上之基礎，即為民事訴訟法第277條後段。次者，就適用交易因果關係推定之請求權，僅限於證券交易法第20條3項與第20條之1，而應排除基於民法及公司法之請求權。再者，原告應就下述要件進行舉證後，方可取得推定交易因果關係之利益：（1）財務報告不實；（2）不實資訊具備重大性；（3）不實資訊對於證券價格之扭曲；（4）符合證券交易法上之主觀要件。最後，關於持有人適用交易因果關係推定之問題，本文主張，「不實之財務報告公布後再行加碼買入有價證券」之持有人，方可適用交易因果關係之推定。
　　在損失因果關係方面，本文就證券市場之損失定性為「純粹經濟上損失」，並在此基礎上，本於相關政策考量，認為損失因果關係之證明，不應採取事前之寬鬆標準；此外，損失因果關係之事前寬鬆標準，更與投資人自己責任原則以及證券交易法之立法目的相悖離；最後，於寬鬆標準下，無疑地係將市場上因錯誤定價、過度反應與反應不足等問題，所衍生之證券價格變化，轉嫁由被告承擔。然而，若採取事後觀點，即更正資訊及股價下跌，亦有可能因我國證券市場之交易機制，導致股價之下跌不甚明顯；此外，在事後的觀點下，將增加被告於資訊更正前操縱股價之可能，以緩和資訊揭露或更正後股價下跌之幅度；最後，事後觀點亦將大幅提高公司經營階層為不實陳述之誘因。基於上開之說明可知，無論係事前或事後標準，均有不足之處，因此，本文認為，有關損失因果關係之證明，或可參考學者所述之折衷見解，亦即，原告須證明下述二者要件：（1）不實資訊造成股價灌水；（2）不實資訊已未支撐該股票之市場價格而導致股價下跌。
　　第六章則為本文之結論。

關鍵字

財務報告不實 ； 不實陳述 ； 隱匿 ； 證券詐欺 ； 因果關係 ； 交易因果關係 ； 損失因果關係 ； 效率市場假說 ； 行為財務學 ； 詐欺市場理論 ； 事前標準 ； 事後標準 ； 證券團體訴訟

並列摘要

The causation of fraudulent financial reporting, plays an important role in the elements of the establishment of civil liability, judgments and proofs of causation also concerns the ideology of legal policy. In order to clarify causation of fraudulent financial reporting under the law of Taiwan, this thesis begins by investigating fraudulent financial reporting in liability for damages it causes, and proposing types, meaning and the difficulty of proof of the causation of fraudulent financial reporting. Then exploring issues of causation of fraudulent financial reporting from a behavioral finance point of view, referencing practice of law and doctrine in the United States. In addition, because Taiwan has accumulated a large number of collective redress judgments in recent years, the thesis attempts to group cases of collective redress. Finally, we try to reconstruct the causation of fraudulent financial reporting under the law of Taiwan.
The first chapter is the introduction. In the second chapter, in view of Securities and Exchange Act was formulated on a substantial reference to the provisions of the United States law, therefore, the thesis introduces respectively the securities class action system in the United States, as well as the norms of liabilities for damages, then further discusses the causation of fraudulent financial reporting in the litigation system of collective redress and the nature of the relevant civil norms, requirements and legal effects. After analysis and discussion, this thesis further argues that the causation of fraudulent financial reporting should be divided into transaction causation and loss causation, and these two should be the requirements of the claim under the Securities and Exchange Act, Civil Code and the Company Law.
Chapter 3 discusses the development of the causation of securities fraud in US law. In the aspect of transaction causation, in the beginning, the existence of causation can be presumed by the fact which is materiality in the matter of omission. Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gradually applied the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory with the materiality of false information. In 1988, the Supreme Court of the United States formally applied the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory to the presumption of causation of transaction in the Basic case on the basis of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Again in 2014, in the HalliburtonⅡ, the Supreme Court maintained this method. In the case of the losses causation, before the Dura case of the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005, there was a different standard of proof of causation of losses in the federal courts. In the Dura case, the Federal Supreme Court formally rejected the inflated purchase price as a way of proving causality, but the Federal Supreme Court did not specify what criteria should be adopted, so far there is no consistency of views in courthouses over the country. At the end of the third chapter, in view of the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory, and the ex ante standard identified a loose standard the causation of loss, the theoretical basis are constructed on the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, so this thesis attempts to further analysis and review of the causation theory applying behavioral finance.
In the fourth chapter, the thesis analyzes and compares the collective redress judgments of cases of securities investors and Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center (“SFIPC”) as of December 31, 2016, and arranges them in the appendix of this article. As far as conclusion is concerned, first of all, in Taiwan's judicial practice, causation is not divided into transaction causation and loss causation. Moreover, in addition to the discussion of the relevant theoretical basis of the presumption of causation, the thesis draws the conclusion that the standards of efficient capital market is different in the development of the practice of Fraud-on-the-Market Theory in Taiwan; moreover, the courts put forward the criteria of the efficiency market. In addition, in the efficient capital market, Taiwan's practice has special emphasis on the role of professional investors and functions. On the basis of the presumption of causation, in addition to the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory described above, the courts in Taiwan generally invoked Article 277 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure as the basis for presumption of causation. Even the he relevant elements of presumption of causation are not completely the same as the elements of the law in the United States, each with different views on standards. In this view, this thesis also focuses on the judicial judgments which do not make the presumption of causation, and further discuss the basis of the relevant arguments of judicial decisions. In addition, in such views, there are also different standards on proving causation.
In the fifth chapter, the thesis attempts to put forward the views on the issues of transaction causation and loss causation, based on the practical judicial practices and scholar's views in both the United States and Taiwan, to paint a complete picture of the causation of fraudulent financial reporting in Taiwan. In transaction causation, this thesis argues that based on the legislative purpose of safeguarding the Securities and Exchange Act and strengthening the principle of continuous disclosure, the position of causation presumption should be adopted. The legal basis of presumption is the latter part of Article 277 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, the right to apply the presumption of transaction causation is limited to Sections 20(3) and 20-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, and right of claim based on the Civil Code and Company Act should be excluded. Furthermore, the plaintiff shall obtain the benefits of presumption of transaction causation if has proof of following: (1) the financial report is false; (2) the false information is materiality; (3) false information causes distortions on price of securities (4) meets the subjective requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act. Finally, with regard to the application of the causation presumption of the holder, the thesis argues that the holder of the securities "purchase the securities again after the publication of the financial report" can be applied to the presumption transaction causation.
In the aspect of loss causation, the loss of stock market is qualitatively "pure economic loss". On the basis of this and considering relevant policies, we should not adopt the ex ante loose standard in proving loss causation. In addition, the loss of the ex anti loose standards of loss causation, is contrary from the investor's own caveat emptor and the legislative purpose of Securities Exchange Act. Finally, under the looser standard, there is no doubt that the market price of securities derived from the securities price changes, such as mispricing, overreaction and underreaction, is passed on to the defendant. However, ex post, ie corrections and truth-then-drop, are also likely to result in a less pronounced fall in stock prices due to the trading mechanisms in Taiwan's securities markets. In addition, the ex post standard will increase the likelihood that the defendant will manipulate the stock price prior to the correction of the information in order to mitigate the extent of the stock price declines after the corrections of misrepresentation. Finally, the ex post standard will substantially increase the incentive for the company's management to misrepresent. Based on the above description we can see that, whether the ex anti or ex post standard, there are shortcomings, therefore, this thesis asserts that the proof of loss causation, should be a compromise of the both according to relevant academics. That is, the plaintiff to prove the following two elements: (1) false information causing stock price inflation; (2) false information not supporting the stock market price and leading stock prices to fall. Supporting the market price of the stock which led to stock prices fell.
Chapter 6 is the conclusion of this thesis.

並列關鍵字

fraudulent financial reporting ； misrepresentation ； omission ； securities fraud ； causation ； transaction causation ； loss causation ； efficient capital market hypothesis ； behavioral finance ； fraud on the market theory ； ex ante standard ； ex post standard ； securities collective redress

參考文獻

邵慶平（2015）。〈投保中心代表訴訟的公益性：檢視、強化與反省〉，《臺大法學論叢》，44卷第1期，頁223-262。

陳聰富（2011）。〈法人團體之侵權責任〉，《臺大法學論叢》，40卷第4期，頁2087-2126。

陳聰富（2006）。〈人身侵害之損害概念〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，35卷第1期，頁47-110。

莊永丞（2005）。〈證券交易法第二十條證券詐欺損害估算方法之省思〉，《臺大法學論叢》，34卷第2期，頁123-180。

王麗玉（2005）。〈董事之民事責任〉，《律師雜誌》，第305期，頁30-42。