透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.235.130.73
  • 學位論文

內線交易團體訴訟之研究

A Study on the Insider Trading Group Litigation

指導教授 : 姚志明

摘要


證券交易法因近年來發生多起公司內線交易案例(如:復興航空、樂陞、兆豐、台開等案件),備受重視,許多內線交易依證券交易法之規定,知道重大消息將影響股票的價格,在消息明確後不得買賣股票,但此類案件在法院判決,可能有罪亦可能被判無罪,如此反覆之判決使投資人無所適從,而由於我國證券及期貨市場之投資人以散戶居多(參證券投資人及期貨交易人保護中心2003-2016年報),相較於證券商、期貨商及發行公司而言,投資人在證券市場上大多處於經濟上之弱勢,為防止其侵害投資人之權益外,應賦予受害投資人適當的救濟途徑,立法政策上即有集結眾多投資人力量之證券團體訴訟,透過證券團體訴訟制度運用,除可填補受害投資人損害外,尚具嚇阻不法及維持證券市場秩序效用,導致投資人逐漸重視,如受損害之投資人皆放棄救濟,除所遭受之損害無法填補之外,亦縱容不法的行為者荷包滿滿,逍遙法外,但若由個別投資人提起訴訟,則恐耗費其各項成本,並可能發生各級法院裁判相互矛盾之困擾,當其權益受損提起訴訟或上訴時,亦可能因個人投資金額太小而無法聘請律師及訴訟成本過高等因素,投資人放棄目前的訴訟程序,我國現行證券交易法法規的法律結構問題,以致團體訴訟之相關爭議無法確實防治,致使臺灣企業所爆發之弊案層出不窮,實無其他制度得以發揮事前預防或事後停止等保護機制,本篇論文透過以舉證責任、團體訴訟之實務案例探討是否有規範不足處,並對所面臨的問題加以討論,提出淺見。

並列摘要


In recent years, numerous cases of company insider trading (such as TransAsia Airways, XPEC Entertainment, Mega International Commercial Bank, and the Taiwan Land Development Corporation) have increased focus on the Securities and Exchange Act. Many insider trading cases did not follow Securities and Exchange Act regulations, which stipulates that stakeholders who have knowledge of major news that can affect stock prices cannot sell their stocks once the news is confirmed. However, court decisions for this type of cases might not be guilty when the parties are in reality guilty. This type of repeated decisions confuses investors, and they may not know what to do. Most investors in Taiwan’s securities and futures market are individuals (reference 2003 – 2016 annual report from the Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center). Compared with securities traders, futures traders, and distribution companies, investors tend to be economically weaker in the stock market. To prevent harm to investors’ rights, and to provide appropriate relief pathway for affected investors, legislative policy has gathered the power of multiple investors into securities class action. Securities class action system can be used to provide compensation to affected investors, can deter illegal action, and maintain stock market order. Thus, class action is becoming valued by investors. If affected investors forfeit their relief, they will not be able to receive compensation for damages, and violators can get away with their illegitimate gains without consequence. However, if individual investors bring up litigation, the cost can be prohibitive. The decision of different courts may also conflict with each other. When an investor litigates or appeals because their right was infringed upon, they may not be able to hire a lawyer because their individual investment amount is too small; or, the litigation cost may be too high, and the investor is forced to give up ongoing litigation. Taiwan’s existing Securities and Exchange Act legal structure cannot prevent class action related disputes. As a result, Taiwan corporate scandals have occurred over and over again. There are no other systems that can prevent insider trading from occurring or protect investors after insider trading has occurred. In this study, we use burden of proof and class action cases to explore whether there are deficiencies in the regulations. We also discuss the problems we face and propose solutions to these problems.

參考文獻


15.黃宏全,消費訴訟之舉證責任-最高法院100年度台上字第104號判決觀察,月旦裁判時報,第35期,2015年5月,頁22-32。
2.枋啟民,少數股東民事訴訟救濟制度之檢討,台灣大學碩士論文,2007 年。
1.呂綺珍,論民事證據法上之事實認定與證明責任,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所論文,2004年。
5.周振鋒,論股東代表訴訟的變革方向-以美國法為研析基礎,政大法學評論,第115期,2010年6月,頁243-308。
19.賴英照,公務員是不是內部人,高大法學論叢,第3卷第1期,2007年12月,頁125-165。

延伸閱讀