透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.83.87.94
  • 學位論文

公開收購下之內線交易問題探討

A Study on Insider Trading with Tender Offers

指導教授 : 朱德芳

摘要


由於企業併購所帶來之綜效,近年來世界各地紛紛吹起併購風。取得一家公司之經營權有許多方式,公開收購是最為常見的手段之一,蓋公開收購下,併購者可藉由提出公開收購之要約,限定收購之期間與價格;此舉不但能直接略過目標公司之經營階層,同時亦能避免因為併購消息走漏而使市場之股價飆高,增加併購之成本,同時達到短時間內大量購得目標公司股份之效果。公司可能因為各種不同之原因而進行公開收購,而由於公開收購之諸多優點,也使其成為現今最熱門之商業活動之一,故相關之法律問題即具有研究之意義,其中內線交易問題即為待研究之重要議題之一。 無論公開收購之動機或進行公開收購之背景為何,在公開收購之準備過程中,併購公司之內部人員、主管機關之公務人員、印刷資料之工人、甚至是負責招待茶水之庶務人員都有可能知悉此一未經公開之訊息,從而得以趁公開收購之消息未公開之前進場買賣目標公司股份獲利。尤其最近檢調將查緝內線交易視為重點工作之一,報章媒體上更是常見公司之內部人利用公開收購之機會,暗中進行內線交易之報導。此種利用公開收購前進行內線交易之行為,不僅破壞整體金融秩序,同時亦打擊投資人之信心,易使投資大眾對於公開收購一事有負面印象,進而忽略公開收購所帶來之好處,有礙整體經濟發展。 我國雖於證券交易法第一百五十七條之一明文禁止利用未公布之公開收購消息進行內線交易,然而由於法律條文不夠明確,實務上對於如何適用上開條文仍有許多不同見解。尤其是依我國證券交易法第一百七十一條,內線交易之行為人將被處十年以下有期徒刑,則基於刑法上「罪刑法定主義」之要求,細緻並明確化內線交易之構成要件更是當務之急。 準此,本文擬先分別從經濟觀點以及比較法之觀點,說明規範內線交易之理論基礎何在,藉以了解整個法律規範之起源,以及其移植於我國後,實務上對於規範內線交易之看法如何。次就我國公開收購程序之流程為詳盡之說明,以了解實務上有心人士可能利用哪些機會進行內線交易。另外,本文亦擬從比較法以及我國法院判決分析,涉及公開收購時之內線交易案件,其爭點可能有哪些,俾了解實務上可能產生之模糊地帶,並提出本文意見為結論。

並列摘要


“Tender offer” is a corporate finance term denoting a type of takeover bid. The tender offer is a public, open offer (usually announced in a newspaper advertisement) by an acquirer to all stockholders of a publicly traded corporation to tender their stock for sale at a specified price during a specified time, subject to the tendering of a minimum and maximum number of shares. Tender offers are made directly to shareholders and are commonly used to takeover a target company when that company's board of directors does not approve the acquisition. In these years, in Taiwan, tender offers have become one of the most popular business activities. Thus, the significant question is to what extent does the insider trading prohibition apply where the defendant traded on the basis of information derived from sources other than the issuer. In the United States, SEC Rule 14e-3 under Exchange Act Section 14(e) is limited to insider trading in connection with a tender offer. Unlike both the disclose or abstain rule and the misappropriation theory under Rule 10b-5, Rule 14e-3 liability is not premised on breach of a fiduciary duty. There is no need for a showing that the trading party or tipper was subject to any duty of confidentiality, and no need to show that a tipper personally benefited from the tip. In EU’s Directive 2003/6/EC, it states that “An integrated and efficient financial market requires market integrity. The smooth functioning of securities markets and public confidence in markets are prerequisites for economic growth and wealth. Market abuse harms the integrity of financial markets and public confidence in securities and derivatives.” As a result, considering the integrity of the market and public confidence in securities, we should reconsider the law and regulation of insider trading with tender offers. The analysis herein touched briefly on the US insider trading law and the EU’s Directive. It is to be hoped that Taiwan will take advantage of the instances, while avoiding the worst of their foibles.

參考文獻


18. 賴英照,公務員是不是內部人?,法學論叢,第3卷,第1期(2007)
13. 郭大維,我國公開收購制度之探討-兼論英美相關立法例,台北大學法學論叢,第65期(2008)
3. 最高法院91年度台上字第3037號刑事判決
7. 最高法院95年度台上字第3190號刑事判決
6. 最高法院94年度台上字第1433號刑事判決

被引用紀錄


申心蓓(2012)。內線交易中重大消息認定之實務分析-以企業併購案例為中心〔碩士論文,國立交通大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6842%2fNCTU.2012.01068
劉柏江(2009)。「內線交易」構成要件之剖析〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1708200917521300
吳韶芹(2010)。企業併購內線交易法規範之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-2508201001060000

延伸閱讀