【摘要】：我國證券市場(chǎng)的飛速發(fā)展,對(duì)國民經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展起到積極的推動(dòng)作用,但是我國的證券市場(chǎng)與成熟的證券市場(chǎng)相比,基礎(chǔ)仍不牢固,其主要原因是規(guī)范化程度還不夠,市場(chǎng)法制環(huán)境尚不完善,證券市場(chǎng)基礎(chǔ)制度尚未穩(wěn)固,近年來屢發(fā)不止的證券侵權(quán)糾紛就是最好的證明。自2003年最高人民法院頒布相關(guān)司法解釋來雖然對(duì)虛假陳述侵權(quán)案件有了比較科學(xué)詳盡的解決機(jī)制,然而其實(shí)效性令人堪憂。于是人們?cè)絹碓疥P(guān)注于發(fā)展且促進(jìn)多元化糾紛解決的機(jī)制,但另辟蹊徑也需找對(duì)切入點(diǎn),針對(duì)具有特殊性質(zhì)的虛假陳述所產(chǎn)生的一系列糾紛建立仲裁機(jī)制正是基于證券市場(chǎng)最基本的信息披露制度和侵權(quán)責(zé)任中最基本的誠實(shí)信用原則所提出的,只有由淺至深地深入糾紛解決中才能既符合我國的實(shí)情又具有操作性。 本文共分為四章。第一章追本溯源地從最原始的信息披露制度的概念引出上市公司虛假陳述行為的定義,界定虛假陳述及其構(gòu)成要件,指出虛假陳述行為與其他證券欺詐行為存在的差異。同時(shí)通過對(duì)上市公司虛假陳述糾紛的典型案例的討論,指出此類糾紛具有一系列不同于一般證券爭(zhēng)議的特點(diǎn),分別有所涉及的財(cái)產(chǎn)利益重大,內(nèi)含很強(qiáng)的專業(yè)性,往往具有群體性,糾紛事實(shí)爭(zhēng)議與解決過程復(fù)雜。 第二章則對(duì)各種解決機(jī)制,主要包括訴訟機(jī)制和仲裁機(jī)制進(jìn)行比較分析,擺出解決機(jī)制的現(xiàn)狀及問題,作為新生糾紛,傳統(tǒng)訴訟模式措手不及,難以全然接納,仲裁機(jī)制尚未被重視,繼而成為與訴訟互補(bǔ)的糾紛解決機(jī)制。 第三章介紹此類糾紛的仲裁制度的概念、特征及優(yōu)越性,探討仲裁制度建立的可行性和必要性,引出針對(duì)此類糾紛所建立的仲裁制度的特殊性,進(jìn)一步說明建立和完善該類糾紛的仲裁制度的理念意義和實(shí)踐意義。 第四章主要是對(duì)于完善我國虛假陳述糾紛仲裁制度的思考和建議,借鑒證券仲裁制度發(fā)達(dá)的美國的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn),從宏觀的制度性建設(shè)和微觀的仲裁規(guī)則制定兩個(gè)方面分別嘗試在結(jié)合中國證券市場(chǎng)的大背景下提出可操作性較強(qiáng)的虛假陳述仲裁制度。
[Abstract]:The rapid development of the securities market in our country has played a positive role in promoting the development of the national economy. However, compared with the mature securities market, the basis of the securities market in our country is still not solid, the main reason is that the standardization degree is not enough. The legal environment of the market is not perfect, the basic system of the securities market is not yet firm, and the repeated securities tort disputes are the best proof in recent years. Since 2003, the Supreme people's Court has promulgated relevant judicial explanations to solve the infringement cases of false statements in a more scientific and detailed way, but its effectiveness is worrying. As a result, people are increasingly concerned with the development and promotion of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, but they also need to find the right entry point for alternative approaches. The establishment of arbitration mechanism for a series of disputes arising from false statements of special nature is based on the most basic information disclosure system of the securities market and the most basic principle of good faith in tort liability. Only from shallow to deep in the dispute settlement can accord with the reality of our country and have the operation. This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter introduces the definition of false statement behavior of listed company from the most primitive concept of information disclosure system, defines false statement and its constituent elements, and points out the difference between false statement behavior and other securities fraud. At the same time, through the discussion of typical cases of misrepresentation disputes of listed companies, it is pointed out that these disputes have a series of characteristics different from those of general securities disputes. Often has the group, the dispute fact dispute and the settlement process is complicated. The second chapter makes a comparative analysis of various settlement mechanisms, including litigation mechanism and arbitration mechanism, and presents the present situation and problems of the settlement mechanism. As a new dispute, the traditional litigation mode is unprepared and difficult to fully accept. Arbitration mechanism has not been attached importance to, and then become complementary to litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The third chapter introduces the concept, characteristics and advantages of the arbitration system of such disputes, discusses the feasibility and necessity of the establishment of the arbitration system, and leads to the particularity of the arbitration system established for such disputes. Further explain the conceptual significance and practical significance of establishing and perfecting the arbitration system of this kind of disputes. The fourth chapter is mainly to perfect our country false statement dispute arbitration system ponder and the suggestion, draws lessons from the securities arbitration system developed America's advanced experience, From two aspects of macro institutional construction and micro arbitration rule making, this paper tries to put forward a more maneuverable arbitration system of false statement under the background of Chinese securities market.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.287;D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉定華,張嚴(yán)方;對(duì)進(jìn)一步完善虛假陳述民事賠償制度的思考——評(píng)《關(guān)于審理證券市場(chǎng)因虛假陳述引發(fā)的民事賠償案件的若干規(guī)定》[J];財(cái)經(jīng)理論與實(shí)踐;2004年04期

2 陳岱松;魏華文;;論中國證券糾紛仲裁法律制度之構(gòu)建[J];財(cái)貿(mào)研究;2009年04期

3 韓德宗,陳啟歡;證券欺詐的理論與實(shí)證分析[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)科學(xué);2002年06期

4 張韶華;證券爭(zhēng)議:兩種法律解決途徑的比較分析[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)科學(xué);2004年01期

5 郭鋒;;證券市場(chǎng)虛假陳述及其民事賠償責(zé)任——兼評(píng)最高法院關(guān)于虛假陳述民事賠償?shù)乃痉ń忉孾J];法學(xué)家;2003年02期

6 劉少軍;;論法程序的本質(zhì)與經(jīng)濟(jì)法程序[J];法學(xué)家;2006年03期

7 王存;從《仲裁法》看我國的證券仲裁制度[J];法學(xué);1996年08期

8 趙琦嫻;證券市場(chǎng)內(nèi)幕交易民事責(zé)任制度研究[J];法學(xué);2003年10期

9 張文先;中國證券市場(chǎng)發(fā)展的邏輯與制度選擇[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2004年11期

10 周成泓;;中國證券仲裁制度略論[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年12期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 沈四寶 王曉川 沈建中;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2002年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 顏曉閩;美國證券法律史研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王秉乾;證券仲裁法律制度研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2004年

2 呂霄;多方當(dāng)事人仲裁問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

3 任志強(qiáng);證券虛假陳述的替代性糾紛解決方式研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2118939