本文關(guān)鍵詞： 注冊制 保薦人 新股發(fā)行 法律責(zé)任　出處：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2013年十八屆三中全會確定了資本市場的改革方向,即通過"推進(jìn)股票發(fā)行注冊制改革"和"多渠道推動股權(quán)融資"來實(shí)現(xiàn)"提高直接融資比重"的目標(biāo)。同年11月30日,證監(jiān)會通過廣泛征求社會各界的意見和長達(dá)半年的專家研討,制定并發(fā)布了《關(guān)于進(jìn)一步推進(jìn)新股發(fā)行體制改革的意見》(以下簡稱《新股發(fā)行改革意見》),該《意見》對新股發(fā)行體制改革在政策方面做出了規(guī)范。與新股發(fā)行體制密切相關(guān)的保薦制度也引起了業(yè)界和理論界的熱烈討論,而討論的核心正是IPO注冊制背景下保薦人的法律責(zé)任。本文重點(diǎn)分析新股發(fā)行注冊制改革之際,如何完善保薦人的法律責(zé)任這一問題。首先引入境內(nèi)外經(jīng)典欺詐案例,分析我國大陸現(xiàn)行IPO保薦人職責(zé)以及法律責(zé)任存在的問題。得出保薦人與其他參與主體職責(zé)范圍不清,導(dǎo)致"投行會計化"、重復(fù)勞動的局面,主要表現(xiàn)在以下三個方面:"雙保制"導(dǎo)致"重人輕司"非議;"嚴(yán)格保薦人牽頭責(zé)任"模式引發(fā)保薦人與其他中介機(jī)構(gòu)的擔(dān)責(zé)亂象;強(qiáng)制保薦上市導(dǎo)致與監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)重復(fù)勞動。另外,保薦人的法律責(zé)任也存在很多問題,主要表現(xiàn)為行政責(zé)任處罰過輕、部門規(guī)章之間不協(xié)調(diào);民事責(zé)任效力等級過低,民事保障不完善;刑事責(zé)任無法落實(shí)、形同虛設(shè)。雖然2013年之后,監(jiān)管層雖然有意加大了對保薦人的處罰力度,但是仍然沒有起到法律對保薦人的威懾作用,證券市場還是不斷爆發(fā)保薦人違法違規(guī)事件。因此通過比較英國終身制保薦人法律責(zé)任、美國NASDAQ市場的"什錦"保薦人法律責(zé)任和2012年香港保薦人法律責(zé)任的規(guī)定等成熟的境外保薦人法律責(zé)任制度,總結(jié)出對我國改革之路的有利經(jīng)驗(yàn),主要是分解保薦人的職責(zé)和加大對保薦人違法違規(guī)的處罰力度,并提出我國大陸IPO注冊制背景下應(yīng)該厘清保薦人的職責(zé)范圍和完善保薦人的法律責(zé)任。對于如何厘清我國IPO注冊制背景下保薦人的職責(zé)范圍,提出合理分配保薦機(jī)構(gòu)和保薦代表人之間的職責(zé);明確保薦人與其他中介機(jī)構(gòu)及發(fā)行公司的職責(zé)范圍;厘清保薦人與監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的職責(zé),避免重復(fù)監(jiān)管并重構(gòu)注冊制下保薦人的職責(zé)范圍四點(diǎn)建議。關(guān)于重點(diǎn)完善保薦人的行政責(zé)任、民事責(zé)任和刑事責(zé)任,分別提出首先是加大保薦人的行政責(zé)任,主要是加強(qiáng)財產(chǎn)罰和市場禁入罰;其次完善保薦人的民事責(zé)任,提出"先償后追"的追責(zé)模式、引入證券集團(tuán)訴訟制度和完善保薦人責(zé)任風(fēng)險投保機(jī)制;最后落實(shí)保薦人的刑事責(zé)任,重點(diǎn)借鑒香港改革新規(guī),應(yīng)該在《刑法》中增加與保薦人欺詐行為相適應(yīng)的刑事罪名,但是應(yīng)由控方負(fù)責(zé)舉證嚴(yán)格的違法行為。實(shí)現(xiàn)完善IPO注冊制背景下保薦人法律責(zé)任的重大目標(biāo)。
[Abstract]:In 2013, the third Plenary session of the 18 Central Committee decided on the direction of capital market reform, that is, to achieve the goal of "increasing the proportion of direct financing" through "promoting the reform of share issuance registration system" and "promoting equity financing through multiple channels". The CSRC has extensively solicited the opinions of all sectors of the community and conducted expert discussions for up to half a year. "opinions on further promoting the Reform of New Stock issuance system" (hereinafter referred to as "opinions on the Reform of New Stock issuance") have been formulated and published, which have standardized the policy aspects of the reform of the new issue system and the issue of new shares. The recommendation system, which is closely related to the system, has also aroused heated discussions among the industry and the theoretical community. The core of the discussion is the legal liability of sponsors under the background of IPO registration system. This paper focuses on the analysis of how to perfect the legal liability of sponsors when the new issue registration system is reformed. This paper analyzes the current duties of IPO sponsors and the problems of legal liability in mainland China. It is concluded that the scope of responsibilities of sponsors and other participants is not clear, which leads to the situation of "accounting of investment banks" and duplication of efforts. It is mainly manifested in the following three aspects: "double insurance system" leads to the criticism of "putting emphasis on people and neglecting companies", "strict lead responsibility of sponsors" leads to confusion between sponsors and other intermediary organizations; Compulsory sponsor listing results in duplication of work with regulatory bodies. In addition, there are also many problems in the legal liability of sponsors, which mainly show that the administrative liability punishment is too light, the department rules and regulations are not in harmony, the civil liability level is too low, Civil protection is not perfect; criminal liability cannot be implemented, and it is virtually empty. Although after 2013, the regulatory authorities intentionally increased the punishment of sponsors, they still did not play a deterrent role to sponsors by law. The securities market continues to break out the laws and regulations of sponsors. Therefore, by comparing the legal liability of sponsors in the UK, The mature legal liability system of overseas sponsors, such as the "assorted" legal liability of sponsors in the NASDAQ market of the United States and the legal liability of sponsors in Hong Kong in 2012, has summed up the beneficial experience of the road of reform in China. It is mainly to break down the responsibilities of sponsors and to increase the punishment of sponsors for violating laws and regulations. It also points out that under the background of IPO registration system in mainland China, we should clarify the scope of the sponsor's responsibility and perfect the legal liability of the sponsor. As to how to clarify the scope of the sponsor's duty under the background of the IPO registration system in China, To propose a reasonable distribution of responsibilities between the sponsor organization and the sponsor representative; to clarify the scope of responsibilities of the sponsor and other intermediary institutions and issuing companies; and to clarify the responsibilities of the sponsor and the regulatory body, Four suggestions on avoiding duplication of supervision and reconstructing the scope of responsibilities of sponsors under the registration system. Regarding the emphasis on perfecting the sponsor's administrative liability, civil liability and criminal liability, respectively, it is proposed that the first step is to increase the sponsor's administrative liability, Secondly, we should improve the civil liability of sponsors, put forward the liability model of "compensation first and then pursue", introduce the securities group litigation system and perfect the risk insurance mechanism of sponsors' liability. Finally, to implement the criminal responsibility of sponsors and to draw on Hong Kong's new rules on reform, we should add to the Criminal Law criminal charges that are appropriate to the sponsor's fraudulent behavior. However, the prosecution should be responsible for the strict proof of illegal behavior and achieve the important goal of perfecting the sponsor's legal liability under the background of IPO registration system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.287

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 任生,吳曉東;淺析保薦人制度的價值[J];理論前沿;2003年01期

2 談蕭;香港保薦人制度最新修訂述評[J];證券市場導(dǎo)報;2005年04期

3 談蕭;;保護(hù)保薦人[J];法人雜志;2005年12期

4 張莉鑫;;保薦人制度之路通往何處[J];金融法苑;2005年08期

5 賀志新;于忠龍;;我國證券市場保薦人制度法律問題探析[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年02期

6 陳靜;;保薦人法律地位初探[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)理人;2006年21期

7 黨璽;;保薦人責(zé)任問題法律研究[J];福建金融管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年01期

8 徐劍;;淺議我國保薦人的責(zé)任[J];邵陽學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年05期

9 韓燁;尹一珉;;淺談我國保薦人制度[J];湘潮(下半月)(理論);2009年12期

10 周子凡;嚴(yán)珊;;完善保薦人監(jiān)管的法律思考[J];中國集體經(jīng)濟(jì);2011年28期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 許永杰;;引進(jìn)外部獨(dú)立監(jiān)事、強(qiáng)化監(jiān)事會職能——兼論中國上市公司法人治理結(jié)構(gòu)的完善[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2001年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 ;港交所保薦人制運(yùn)作三步曲[N];中國證券報;2003年

2 中國社科院研究生院 田紅勤;論保薦人盡職審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的設(shè)置[N];中國證券報;2004年

3 寧波廣播電視大學(xué) 裘偉廷;信息不對稱與保薦人誠信危機(jī)的防范[N];中國證券報;2004年

4 記者 陳勁;保薦人“轉(zhuǎn)會”激流中隱憂涌動[N];中國證券報;2004年

5 李曙光;強(qiáng)化保薦人責(zé)任是第一要義[N];法制日報;2004年

6 魏巍;保薦人制度下 保薦人風(fēng)險不容忽視[N];金融時報;2003年

7 弘文;保薦人上演“乾坤大挪移”[N];上海證券報;2005年

8 甘世雄;保薦人制度：券商投行業(yè)務(wù)的“緊箍咒”[N];21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)報道;2003年

9 亞杰;保薦人制緣何值得期待[N];深圳商報;2004年

10 中煤信托投資公司 王禮平;積極應(yīng)對保薦人制度的挑戰(zhàn)[N];證券時報;2003年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 齊潔;保薦人制度研究[D];北方工業(yè)大學(xué);2009年

2 徐微;保薦人職責(zé)研究[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

3 胡卿;保薦人制度研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2005年

4 徐小慧;保薦人責(zé)任權(quán)力均衡與保薦制度有效性問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

5 胡龍嬌;保薦人制度比較研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

6 白哲靜;試論我國監(jiān)管保薦人之法律制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

7 王英婕;保薦人制度的法律規(guī)制[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

8 馬爽;保薦人制度法律問題研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2011年

9 楊麗萍;我國保薦人職責(zé)制度研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2013年

10 苗玉坤;上市公司保薦人法律制度完善研究[D];廣東商學(xué)院;2013年

，

本文編號：1517126