56 Asian Legal Business | December 2024 Commercial Disputes often entrust third-party professional organizations to assess the investor losses attributed to these other factors, providing a calculation report as a basis for the final judgment. 2.6 Other entities other than the security issuer According to Article 85 and Article 163 of the Securities laws, as well as relevant provisions in the New Judicature Interpretation, entities other than the security issuer that may bear civil liability for false statements include: the actual controllers and controlling shareholders of the issuer; the directors, supervisors, senior management, and other directly responsible person of the issuer; underwriting and sponsor institutions, along with their directly responsible person; accounting firms, law firms, credit rating agencies, asset valuation agencies, financial advisors, and other security service institutions; the counterparties in significant corporate asset restructuring transactions; the issuer's suppliers, customers and financial institutions that knowingly assist the issuer in financial fraud activities or deliberately conceal material facts, leading to false statements in the issuer's disclosure documents. Among the aforementioned entities, the issuer's controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors, senior management personnel, and other directly responsible persons, as well as the sponsors, underwriting securities firms, and their directly responsible persons, are all subject to the doctrine of presumption. Unless these entities can provide evidence to prove their innocence. 3. Key procedural issues concerning claims disputes caused by false statements in the securities market 3.1 Jurisdiction According to Article 3 of the New Judicature Interpretation, civil compensation cases for securities market false statement torts fall under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court of the city where the issuer is domiciled, the autonomous region, or directly administered municipality, or a specialized people's court in a district under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court or a special economic zone. 3.2 Representative action Given that disputes regarding false statements in the securities market often involve numerous investors, to facilitate investors in initiating and participating in litigation and reduce the cost of safeguarding their rights, Article 95 of the Securities Laws specifically stipulates the representative action system. Where investors institute civil actions for damages caused by misrepresentation, related to securities, they may legally recommend and select representatives to participate in the actions if the subject matters of the actions are of the same kind and the parties on one side of the actions are numerous. In accordance with the above provisions of the Securities Laws, the Supreme People’s Court has issued the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Representative Actions in Security Disputes to provide further regulations on the specific procedures of representative litigation. 3.3 Demonstration judgment mechanism To efficiently resolve disputes given the characteristics of such cases, the courts have also explored innovative trial mechanisms in judicial practice, such as the demonstration judgment mechanism. In this mechanism, when dealing with collective security disputes, the court selects representative cases for preliminary trial and judgment. For parallel cases with similar circumstances to the demonstration judgment, mediation is first attempted based on the demonstration judgment results. If mediation fails, a simplified trial procedure is followed to improve trial efficiency. 1. 证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议的法律依据 1.1 法律 依据中国大陆法律实务界及理论界的主流观点，证券市场 虚假陈述行为，系一种特定类型的侵权行为，因此，有关此类行 为的构成要件及法律责任认定，既适用《中华人民共和国民法 典》（下称“《民法典》”）第七编有关“侵权责任”的一般规定，也 适用《中华人民共和国证券法》（下称“《证券法》”）的特殊规定。 作为特殊法的《证券法》，要优先于作为一般法的《民法典》。但 《证券法》没有规定的，仍然适用《民法典》的规定。 《证券法》有关证券虚假陈述侵权责任的规定，主要见于 该法第八十五条之规定，即：“信息披露义务人未按照规定披露 信息，或者公告的证券发行文件、定期报告、临时报告及其他信 息披露资料存在虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏，致使投 资者在证券交易中遭受损失的，信息披露义务人应当承担赔偿 责任；发行人的控股股东、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人 员和其他直接责任人员以及保荐人、承销的证券公司及其直接 责任人员，应当与发行人承担连带赔偿责任，但是能够证明自 己没有过错的除外。” 1.2 司法解释 证券市场具有公众性、非面对面交易等特点。证券市场虚 假陈述作为一种特定类型的侵权行为，具有不同于一般侵权行 为的显著特点。实施虚假陈述行为的上市公司，相较于一般投 资者，具有不对等的优势地位。如果按照《民法典》有关“侵权责 任”的一般规定去审理此类案件，会导致原告在因果关系等问 题的举证方面，面临过重的举证负担，从而导致不公平的审理 结果。《证券法》第八十五条的规定过于原则，也无法解决上述 法律适用的问题。有鉴于此，最高人民法院出台有关司法解释， 就《证券法》第八十五条在案件审理中的具体适用问题，作出具 体规定。该司法解释于2013年出台（下称“旧司法解释”），2022 年进行了全面修订（下称“新司法解释”）。 2. 证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议所涉及的主要实体问题 2.1 是否构成虚假陈述 信息披露义务的及时、全面、正确履行，系证券市场实现公 平、公正及公开的关键。《证券法》第七章专章就证券市场信息 披露义务的主体、履行要求、监管机构等作出规定。但是，对于 《证券法》项下信息披露义务的违反，并非当然构成民事索赔 意义上的虚假陈述侵权行为。新司法解释第四条和第五条就虚 假陈述的定义以及具体表现形态作出规定。 依据新司法解释第二条规定，原告要想提起此类诉讼，首 先需要证明被告存在虚假陈述行为。实践中，由于虚假陈述行
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA0NzE4Mw==