【作者】 桑士东；

【导师】 汤欣；

【作者基本信息】 清华大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 证券发行保荐责任是保荐人对证券发行虚假陈述给投资者造成的损失承担的赔偿责任。本文对保荐人所承担的虚假陈述责任的特殊方面进行分析论述,主要研究保荐责任的法理基础、责任性质、归责原则、免责条件、保荐人内部人员的责任、保荐人与其他主体之间的责任分摊与补偿等问题。本文主要采用历史分析、比较分析、案例分析和经济分析的方法对上述问题进行研究。首先,文章分析了证券市场信息披露制度的功能和保荐人以及承销商在信息披露中的作用,并对证券发行保荐制与非保荐制进行比较。其次,本文分析了保荐责任产生的法理基础、责任性质、归责原则和免责条件。再次,本文分析了保荐人内部人员就证券虚假陈述对投资者承担的责任,包括是否承担责任、归责原则和免责条件等方面。最后,本文分析了保荐人和其他主体在对投资者承担责任后在其之间如何进行分摊与追偿的问题。笔者认为,证券发行保荐制下的保荐人和非保荐制下的承销商均在证券市场中扮演着总守门员的角色,均负有对发行人进行尽职调查的职责,研究证券发行非保荐制下承销商的责任对研究保荐责任具有借鉴意义。保荐责任产生的根据在于保荐人违反了意在保护投资者的法律,并造成了投资者的损失,因而保荐责任是侵权责任。保荐责任也是共同侵权责任,保荐人要与发行人、专业中介机构对投资者承担连带责任。保荐责任应采取过错推定责任原则,保荐人可以通过举证其已经勤勉尽责而主张免责。应将发行人披露的信息分为官方意见部分、专家意见部分和既非官方意见又非专家意见的部分,分别确定保荐人应尽的尽职调查义务和免责标准。在公开发行募集文件中签字的保荐人内部人员应与保荐人一起对投资者承担连带责任,除非其能够证明自己不存在过错。保荐人或其他主体中的一人或数人对投资者承担责任后,应允许其向其他有过错的主体进行追偿。针对上述具体问题,笔者建议我国《证券法》、《保荐人尽职调查工作准则》以及《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定》做出相应的修改。更多还原

【Abstract】 The civil liability of sponsors in the issuance of securities is to compensate the securities purchasers’loss caused by misrepresentation in the prospectus. This article deals with some aspects of the liability for misrepresentation, which is special for sponsors, including jurisprudential basis, character, doctrine of liability fixation, grounds for exemption, the liability of the employees of sponsors, and the contribution and indemnification among sponsors and other joint tort-feasors.The author mainly employs the research means of history analysis, comparison analysis, case analysis and economic analysis. To begin with, the article analyzes the function of the disclosure regime of securities market and the role of sponsors under the issuance sponsor regime and underwriters under the issuance non-sponsor regime, and compares the issuance sponsor regime and the issuance non-sponsor regime. Then, the article discusses the jurisprudential basis, character, doctrine of liability fixation, grounds for exemption of the civil liability of sponsors in the issuance of securities. In addition, the liability of the sponsors’employees for misrepresentation, including whether they should be directly liable to investors, doctrine of liability of fixation, grounds for exemption if they should assume the liability, is analyzed. Finally, the article studies the contribution and indemnification among sponsors and other joint tort-feasors.In the writer’s opinion, both sponsors under the issuance sponsor regime and underwriters under the issuance non-sponsor regime play a role of a general gatekeeper and are obligated to make reasonable investigation of the issuer. So the study on the liability of underwriters of the issuance non-sponsor regime is helpful for the research of the liability of sponsors under the issuance sponsor regime. The reason for sponsors’liability is that sponsors violate the law which is designed to protect securities purchasers, and causes loss to them. So, the character of sponsor’s liability is tort liability. Sponsor’s liability is that of joint tort, and sponsors, issuers, professional intermediary organizations and other persons should be jointly and severally liable. The doctrine of presumptive wrongs should be adopted for the sponsor’s liability, and sponsors should be exempted if they can successfully prove that they have exerted due diligence. The information disclosed by issuers should be divided into three categories-official portion, expertised portion, and other portion- in order to establish the standard of sponsors’duty of reasonable investigation and defense of due diligence, and the standard varies with different part. The sponsors’employees who sign on the prospectus and the recommendation letter of issuance should be jointly and severally liable with the sponsor, unless they establish the defense of no fault. Every person who should be jointly and severally liable becomes liable to make any payment for misrepresentation may recover contribution from any person who, if sued separately, would have been liable to make the same payment.Meanwhile, some amendments, related with aforesaid problems, to the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China, Guidelines for Sponsor’s Investigation, and Some Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Trying Cases of Civil Compensation for Misrepresentation in Securities Market are suggested.更多还原