| 摘要: | 美國為規範證券的發行及交易市場，分別制定了1933 年證券法及1934 年證券交易法。其中1934年證券交易法Section 10(b)及依據Section 10(b)授權制定的Rule 10b-5係防制證券不法行為最重要的證券詐欺條款。證券詐欺構成要件之一的主觀意圖要件本有爭議，為解決此一爭議，於Hochfelder案中，聯邦最高法院以判決宣示此一主觀意圖要件應限於故意，而不及於普通的過失；至於嚴重過失可否構成故意，本案則於「著名的註12」中表示這個問題讓各級法院自行判斷。當時，絕大多數的法院均承認嚴重過失可以構成故意，幾乎已確立其司法通說的地位。但是在1995 年私人證券訴訟改革法公布後，嚴重過失是否仍被承認及其認定標準為何？又生爭議。證券訴訟統一標準法為修補1995年私人證券訴訟改革法所引發生爭議，於1998年公布，但卻又使得此一爭議更形複雜。最後造成各級法院眾說紛呈的情況。
In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the cienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.”In order to regulate the issuing and trading market of the securities, the U.S. government promulgated Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The most important statutes in preventing the illegal act in securities market are Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the so-called ”securities fraud provision.” The intent requirement of securities fraud was contentious. In order to resolve this issue, Federal Supreme Court in Hochfelder declared that this intent requirement is limited to scienter, not including negligence. As for the issue: Can recklessness also constitute the scienter? The famous note 12 said this issue was ”left open.” At that time, most courts recognized recklessness, it almost became a well-established judicial interpretation. But after the promulgation of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, recklessness and its test became issues again. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to repair this issue, subsequently published in 1998. But when this Act came into force, this issue was getting bitter. Finally, brought in ”circuit split.” |
