Part 1
证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议
的法律依据
Legal Basis of Disputes about Claims Related to False Statements in the Securities Market
（一）法律 Laws
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。
According to the mainstream views in both theoretical and practical law areas of Chinese mainland, false statements in the securities market constitute a specific type of act of tort. Therefore, the elements of such acts and the determination of legal liabilities are governed by both the general provisions on “Tort Liability” in the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (referred to as the “Civil Code”) (the seventh edition) and special provisions of the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China (referred to as the “Securities Laws”). The Securities Laws, as a special law, should take precedence over the general law -the Civil Code. In cases where the “Securities Laws” do not have relevant provisions, the provisions of the Civil Code shall apply.
《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。”
The provisions on tort liability for false statements under the Securities Laws are mainly found in Article 85, which states: “Where any persons liable for information disclosure fail to disclose information in accordance with the regulations, or where the announced securities issuance documents, periodic reports, interim reports, and other information disclosure materials contain false records, misleading statements or material omissions, causing any losses to investors insecurities transactions, the persons liable for information disclosure shall be liable for compensation; the controlling shareholder, actual controllers, directors, supervisors, officers and other directly responsible persons of the issuer, as well as the sponsor, underwriting securities company and their directly responsible persons, shall bear joint and several liability with the issuer, except for those who can prove their innocence.”
（二）司法解释 Judicial interpretation
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”）。
The securities market features publicity and non-face-to- face transactions. False statements in the securities market constitute a specific type of act of tort, with significant differences from ordinary acts of tort. Publicly listed companies made false statements stand a dominant position compared to ordinary investors. Adjudicating such cases in accordance with the general provisions of “Tort Liability” in the Civil Code would burden the plaintiff disproportionately in terms of proving causation, leading to unfair trial outcomes. The provision in Article 85 of the Securities Laws is overprincipled and cannot be used to address those specific issues in the security market. In view of this, the Supreme People’s Court issued judicial interpretations specifically addressing the application of Article 85 of the Securities Laws in case trials. The judicial interpretation was enacted in 2013 (referred to as the “Old Judicial Interpretation”) and underwent a comprehensive revision in 2022 (referred to as the “New Judicature Interpretation”).
Part 2
证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议
所涉及的主要实体问题
Key issues involved in the claims dispute by false statements insecurities market
（一）是否构成虚假陈述
Determination of false statements
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。
Listed companies shall bear the responsibility of disclosing information comprehensively and accurately, which forms the basis of achieving fairness, justice and transparency in the securities market. Chapter VII, Special Chapter of the Securities Laws, stipulates the subjects, requirements for performance, regulatory authorities, and other aspects regarding information disclosure obligations in the securities market. However, violation of the information disclosure obligations under the Securities Laws does not automatically constitute civil liability in terms of tort of false statement. Article 4 and 5 of the New Judicature Interpretation provide definitions of false statements and specific manifestations.
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，由于虚假陈述行为具有较强的隐蔽性，因此，虚假陈述行为往往是在被监管机关关注或处罚后，或者被相关媒体报道后，才公之于众。原告需要借助监管机关的处理决定或者媒体报道作为证据，以证明被告存在虚假陈述行为。法院在认定是否构成虚假陈述行为的时候，往往会关注被告有关行为是否已经被监管机关采取监管措施或者给予行政处罚。一般来说，如果存在上述情形，被告行为被认定为构成虚假陈述的可能性就会大大增加。
In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the New Judicature Interpretation, if a plaintiff initiates such a lawsuit, he bears the burden of establishing that the defendant has engaged in false statement conduct. In practice, due to the inherent concealment of false statements, such conduct is often made public only after regulatory authorities have taken notice of or imposed penalties, or following coverage by the media. The plaintiff needs to rely on regulatory decisions or media reports as evidence to demonstrate the defendants false statement conduct. When determining whether false statement conduct has occurred, the court often considers whether the defendants actions have already been subject to regulatory measures or administrative penalties by the regulator. Generally, if these circumstances exist, the likelihood of the defendants actions being deemed to constitute false statements significantly increases.
（二）虚假陈述的实施日、揭露日、基准日及基准价
Implementation date, disclosure date, base date, and base price of false statements
（三）如果被告行为被认定构成虚假陈述
If the defendants conduct is deemed to constitute false statements
如果被告行为被认定构成虚假陈述，为确定可以提起索赔诉讼的原告的范围，就需要确定虚假陈述的实施日 、揭露日 、基准日及基准价（下称“三日一价”）。新司法解释第七条、第八条及第二十六条就如何界定“三日一价”，作出了具体规定。
If the defendants conduct is deemed to constitute false statements，to determine the scope of the plaintiffs who can file a claim, it is necessary to establish the implementation date, disclosure date, base date, and base price of the false statements (referred to as the “Three Dates and One Price”). Articles 7, 8, and 26 of the New Judicature Interpretation provide specific provisions on how to define the “Three Dates and One Price”.
三日一价中，揭露日的认定，尤为关键。一方面，虚假陈述的揭露往往呈现为一个过程，其中涉及了市场传言、媒体报道、 监管介入等多重因素，究竟应当以哪个节点作为揭露日，存在争议性；另一方面，揭露日的认定，关系到虚假陈述是否具有重大性以及可以提起索赔的原告的范围，对于案件最终的实体结果具有重大影响。在上述两方面因素的共同作用下，揭露日的认定，成为此类案件审理过程中双方争议的焦点。
In the context of the “Three Dates and One Price,” the determination of the disclosure date is especially crucial. On the one hand, the disclosure of false statements often occurs as a process involving multiple factors such as market rumors, media reports and regulatory interventions, and the exact point to be considered as the disclosure date remains disputed; on the other hand, the determination of the disclosure date is closely related to whether the false statements are significant and the scope of plaintiffs who can file a claim, significantly impacting the final substantive outcome of the case. Amid the combined effects of these two factors, the determination of the disclosure date becomes the focus of dispute between the parties throughout the adjudication process of such cases.
（四）虚假陈述行为是否具有重大性
Materiality of false statements
虚假陈述行为具有重大性，是被告就虚假陈述行为承担赔偿责任的前提条件。因此，重大性问题，往往成为此类案件原被告双方争议的焦点问题。特别是，新司法解释于2022年修订后，对于原告提起此类诉讼，已经不再要求以虚假陈述行为被行政或刑事处罚为前置程序。在虚假陈述行为未被行政或刑事处罚的情况下，有关虚假陈述行为重大性问题的争议，逐渐呈现出更加复杂的局面。
The materiality of false statements is a prerequisite for the defendant to bear liability for false statements. Therefore, the issue of materiality often becomes the focal point of dispute between the parties in such cases. In particular, following the revision of the New Judicature Interpretation in 2022, the plaintiff is no longer required to establish that a defendant has previously been subject to administrative or criminal penalties for false statements before initiating such litigation. In cases where false statements have not led to administrative or criminal sanctions, disputes over the materiality of false statements have gradually become more complex.
理论上，对于重大性问题的判断，存在主观性和客观性两种标准。所谓主观性标准，即以虚假陈述对于投资者投资决策的影响作为判断标准。所谓客观性标准，即以虚假陈述对于相关证券的交易价格和交易量的影响作为判断标准。从新司法解释第十条有关重大性的规定来看，法院在对重大性问题进行分析和判断时，除参考成文法的规定外，根本上还是以虚假陈述被揭露之后证券市场的反应作为判断标准，即所谓的客观性标准。司法实践中，法院一般会考虑揭露日当天及之后若干个交易日的交易量及交易价格的变化情况。但是，对于“相关证券的交易价格或者交易量产生明显的变化”的具体认定标准，新司法解释并未作出更为具体的答案，审判实践中也未形成统一的裁判尺度。因此，在有关司法解释作出进一步规定之前，有关重大性问题的争论，仍将继续下去。
In theory, the judgment of materiality is subject to both subjective and objective criteria. Subjective criteria refer to the impact of false statements on investors investment decisions. Objective criteria, on the other hand, focus on the impact of false statements on the trading price and volume of the relevant securities. According to Article 10 of the New Judicature Interpretation regarding materiality, when courts analyze and assess materiality issues, besides referring to statutory provisions,the fundamental criterion is the response of the securities market to the disclosure of false statements, which constitutes the objective standard. In judicial practice, courts typically consider the changes in trading volume and prices for the disclosure day and several subsequent trading days. However, the specific criteria for determining “significant changes in the trading price or volume of the relevant securities” are not definitively addressed in the New Judicature Interpretation, and a standardized judicial scale has not yet emerged in practice. Therefore, until further provisions are stipulated in relevant judicial interpretations, debates on materiality issues are expected to persist.
（五）关于交易因果关系和损失因果关系
Regarding transactional causation and loss causation
从侵权责任法的角度来看，被侵权行为损害的一方，需要承担证明侵权行为与其损失之间存在因果关系的举证责任。新司法解释进一步将因果关系区分为交易因果关系和损失因果关系。所谓交易因果关系，即投资者从事特定股票的交易与虚假陈述行为之间存在因果关系。所谓损失因果关系，即投资者的投资损失与虚假陈述行为之间存在因果关系。为了降低投资者的举证难度，新司法解释就投资者举证证明上述两种因果关系的举证标准作出具体规定。
From the perspective of tort liability law, the party harmed by the tortious act must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the causality between the tortious act and their loss. New judicature interpretations further distinguish causality into transactional causation and loss causation. Transactional causation refers to the causality between an investors trading of specific stocks and false statements. Loss causality refers to the causality between an investors investment loss and false statements. In order to reduce the burden of proof on investors, new judicature interpretations provide specific guidelines on the standard of proof for investors to prove these two types of causality.
依据新司法解释第十一条的规定，投资者仅需证明在虚假陈述实施日之后、揭露日或更正日之前实施了相应的交易行为，即完成存在交易因果关系的举证责任。否认交易因果关系的举证责任，转移到被告一方。除非被告能够举证证明新司法解释第十二条规定的特定情形，否则，法院将依据原告的举证认定存在交易因果关系。
According to Article 11 of the New Judicature Interpretation, an investor only needs to prove that relevant transaction actions were taken after the date of false statement, but before the disclosure or correction date, thus fulfilling the burden of proof regarding the existence of a transactional causation. The burden of proof to deny the loss causation shifts to the defendant. Unless the defendant can demonstrate the specific circumstances defined in Article 12 of the New Judicature Interpretation, the court will determine the existence of a transactional causation based on the plaintiffs evidence.
依据新司法解释第三十一条的规定，法院应当查明虚假陈述与原告损失之间的因果关系，以及导致原告损失的其他原因等案件基本事实，确定赔偿责任范围。司法实践中，如果投资者能够证明存在交易因果关系，法院即推定投资者的损失与虚假陈述行为之间存在损失因果关系，但对于造成原告损失的其他原因，法院也会根据被告举证以及委托专业机构对损失进行核算的方式予以查明。
According to Article 31 of the New Judicature Interpretation, the court shall ascertain the causality between false statements and the plaintiffs losses, as well as other fundamental facts leading to the plaintiffs losses, in order to determine the scope of liability for compensation. In judicial practice, if investors can prove the existence of a transactional causation, the court will presume that there is a causality between the investors losses and the false statement behavior. However, regarding other causes contributing to the plaintiffs losses, the court will also investigate according to the defendants evidence and the method of loss calculation by commissioned professional institutions.
证券价格的变化，除受到虚假陈述的影响之外，同时还受到发行人自行经营情况、特定行业周期、整体市场环境等多重因素的影响。对于上述因素所造成的损失，不应当由被告承担。 但是，对于上述因素所造成的损失如何予以量化认定，系当前此类案件审理过程中的难点。法院在审判实践中，通常会委托第三方专业机构对于上述其他因素导致的投资者损失，进行核算，并出具核算报告，作为最终裁判的依据。
The fluctuation in the price of securities is affected by false statements and the factors such as the issuers operational performance, specific industry cycles and overall market conditions. The losses caused by these factors should not be borne by the defendant. However, quantifying and identifying the losses resulting from these factors presents a challenge in the current adjudication process of such cases. In judicial practice, courts 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.
（六）证券发行人以外的其他主体
Other entities other than the security issuer
依据《证券法》第八十五条、第一百六十三条及新司法解释的有关规定，虚假陈述民事赔偿责任的主体，除证券发行人以外，还可能包括以下主体：发行人的实际控制人及的交易对方；发行人的供应商、客户，以及为发行人提供服务的金融机构等明知发行人实施财务造假活动，仍然为其提供协助，或者故意隐瞒重要事实致使发行人的信息披露文件存在虚假陈述的。
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 issuers 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 issuers disclosure documents.
上述主体中，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，均适用过错推定原则。除非这些主体能够举证证明自身没有过错。
Among the aforementioned entities, the issuers 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.
Part 3
证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议
所涉及的主要程序问题
Key procedural issues concerning claims disputes caused by false statements in the securities market
（一）关于管辖Jurisdiction
依据新司法解释第三条规定，证券虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件，由发行人住所地的省、自治区、直辖市人民政府所在的市、 计划单列市和经济特区中级人民法院或者专门人民法院管辖。
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 peoples court of the city where the issuer is domiciled, the autonomous region, or directly administered municipality, or a specialized peoples court in a district under the jurisdiction of the intermediate peoples court or a special economic zone.
（二）关于代表人诉讼Representative action
鉴于证券市场虚假陈述索赔争议往往涉及投资者众多，为便利投资者提起和参加诉讼，降低投资者维权成本，《证券法》 第九十五条特别规定了代表人诉讼制度，即投资者提起虚假陈述等证券民事赔偿诉讼时，诉讼标的是同一种类，且当事人一方人数众多的，可以依法推选代表人进行诉讼。依据《证券法》 的上述规定，最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于证券纠纷代表人诉讼若干问题的规定》，就代表人诉讼的具体程序作出进一步规定。
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.
（三）关于示范判决机制
Demonstration judgment mechanism
针对此类案件的特点，为高效化解纠纷，法院在司法实践中还探索了新型的审理机制，如示范判决机制，即法院在处理群体性证券纠纷中，选取具有代表性的案件先行审理、先行判决，与示范判决案情相似的平行案件，参照示范判决结果优先调解，调解不成的简化审理程序，以提高审理效率。
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.
陈彤
深圳办公室
ch
