Institutional Predicaments and Optimization Paths in the Causality Determination of Liability for False Statement of Securities

Jiangyu Deng

doi:10.54097/k94yqb52

Authors

Jiangyu Deng

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/k94yqb52

Keywords:

False statement, Causality determination.

Abstract

In recent years, with the deepening implementation of China's registration system, the number of disputes related to liability for false statement of securities has increased significantly. In practice, problems such as the overly mechanical application of causality determination in liability for false statement of securities and the lack of uniform standards for determining the day of disclosure of false statement remain unresolved. This paper, through empirical analysis and comparative law study, proposes optimization paths that include clarifying the boundaries of the application of the fraud on the market theory, expanding the scope of application for causality presumption and unifying the standards for determining the day of disclosure of false statement. The aim is to establish a regulatory paradigm for the causality determination in liability for false statement of securities with Chinese characteristics, assisting regulatory agencies in improving laws and regulations, thereby strengthening constraint of information disclosure, enhancing market transparency, and promoting the sound development of the capital market.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] In China's first special representative securities class action—the Kangmei Pharmaceutical Securities False Statement Liability Case, a civil judgment for joint and several liability was, for the first time, rendered against an accounting firm and the responsible certified public accountants. Zhengzhong Zhujiang Certified accounting firm, which audited Kangmei Pharmaceutical’s annual reports, was held jointly and severally liable for 100% of the damages, because it “failed to perform fundamental audit procedures and exhibited significant deficiencies in its work, failing to detect severe financial fraud.” See Guangdong Province Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2020) Yue 01 Min Chu No. 2171.

[2] Huang Jiazheng. Reflective Interpretation on the Causality Determination of Securities Transaction Fraud under Judicial Interpretation [2003] No. 2 [J]. Enterprise Economy, 2008, 28 (11): 169.

[3] Wang Liming. Improvement of the Civil Liability System in China's Securities Law [J]. Chinese Journal of Law, 2001, 23 (4): 65.

[4] Miao Yinzhi. On the Deficiencies of CSRC's Information Disclosure Rules [J]. Research on Rule of Law, 2016, 33 (2): 141.

[5] Ding Yuxiang. Analysis of the Liability of a Securities Issuing Intermediary Agency for False Statement-From the Perspective of Causality and Fault [J]. Global Law Review, 2021, 60 (6):166.

[6] Article 28-31 of Measures for the Administration of the Offering and Underwriting of Securities (2025 Revision). Articles 5 -10 of the Rules on Intermediary Services for Debt Financing Instruments of Non-financial Enterprises in the Interbank Bond Market (2020 Edition).

[7] Bai Jianjun. The Constitutional Significance of Adjudicative Consistency: An Empirical Study [J]. China Legal Science, 2003, 20 (3): 133.

[8] Rapp R N. Plausible Clause: Exploring the Limits of Loss Causation in Pleading and Proving Market Fraud Claims under Securities Exchange Act Sec. 10 (b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 [J]. Ohio NUL Rev., 2014, 41: 389.

[9] In the case of Qin v. Hebei Jinniu Chemical Co., Ltd. concerning liability for false statement in securities, the court clarified the standard for determining the day of disclosure of false statements, holding that it shall be the date on which the suspected false statement is first publicly disclosed by a national media outlet. The announcement of a CSRC investigation, once disclosed through national media, carries legal effect and may serve as the basis for determining the day of disclosure. Furthermore, the court held that losses incurred by investors who purchased shares after the day of disclosure are not legally causally linked to the false statement. See Hebei High People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2014) Ji Min Er Zhong Zi No. 56.

[10] Cao Mingzhe. The Justification of the Date of Regulatory Investigation Announcements as the Date of Exposure in the Securities Misrepresentation [J]. Securities Law Review, 2019, 26:341-358.

[11] Securities Act of 1993&SEC.11 (a).

[12] The core idea of the “fraud on the market theory” is that the occurrence of false statements constitutes fraud against the entire securities market. Investors make investments based on the belief that the securities market is truthful and that securities prices are fair, without needing to prove that they relied on false statements to make their investment. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the price of the securities in which they invested was affected by the false statements and was thus unfair, to establish a causal link between the investor's loss and the false statements.

[13] In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle of “presumption of reliance” in securities fraud. This theory holds that when investors trade in the open market, they rely on all publicly available information reflected in the market price, including false statements. The judge in this case ruled that “reliance indicates that there is a causal link between the defendant's false statement and the plaintiff's investment loss”. See Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

[14] Ma Qijia. The Determination of Causality in Civil Compensation for False Statements under U.S. Securities Law and Its Implications [J]. Journal of Law Application, 2006, 21 (3): 50.

[15] In re Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, 933 F. 2d 616(8th Cir 1991).

[16] Robbins v. Koger Properties. Inc. 116 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1997).

[17] On November 12, 1969, TSC Corporation and National Corporation issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholders, advising them to support the liquidation and merger transaction. The statement received shareholder approval, leading to the liquidation and dissolution of TSC Corporation, which affected the price of its stock. One of TSC's shareholders, Beilu Corporation, believed that TSC and National had failed to disclose the extent to which National had gained control over TSC in the joint proxy statement and that this information would have influenced shareholders' decisions. As a result, Beilu Corporation filed lawsuits in 1969 and 1972.

[18] Zhu Daming. Japanese Financial Instruments and Exchange Act [M], Law Press, 2015:133.

[19] Fan Jiwei. The Civil Liability System for Securities Fraud under the Japanese Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and Its Implications [J]. Economic Law Review, 2013, 16 (2): 299.

[20] Article 4 of the Measures for the Appropriateness Management of Investors in the National Equities Exchange and Quotations System: “Investors participating in the trading of stocks in the Innovation Layer must meet the following conditions: (1) Legal entities with a registered capital or paid-in capital exceeding RMB 1 million; (2) Partnership enterprises with a total capital contribution exceeding RMB 1 million; (3) Before the opening of the trading authority, the average daily asset balance in the securities and fund accounts under the investor's name must exceed RMB 1 million for the previous 10 trading days.”

[21] Chen Jie. Clarification and Amendment of Joint and Several Liability of the Verification Institution in the Misrepresentation of Securities [J]. China Legal Science, 2021, 38 (6):221.

[22] Coffee, John C. Gatekeepers: The Professions and Corporate Governance [M], translated by Huang Hui, Wang Changhe, et al., Peking University Press, 2011:93.

[23] A single disclosure refers to a situation in the securities market where the market price changes due to the disclosure of a specific event or information, and the investor's loss can be attributed to the disclosure of that single event or piece of information. See Fumerton R A. Market overreaction and loss causation[J]. The Business Lawyer, 2006: 89-101.

[24] Multiple or partial corrective disclosures refer to multiple or partial disclosures made to correct or clarify previously false or misleading information. Unlike a single disclosure, this situation involves the release of information on several occasions to gradually rectify or clarify the prior misinformation. In such cases, the investor’s loss may be caused by multiple corrective disclosures rather than a single disclosure event.

[25] Li, Guoguang. Understanding and Application of the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation on Securities Market False Statement Cases [M]. People's Court Press, 2015:78.

[26] Shu Guoying. Meditations on Legal Philosophy [M]. Peking University Press, 2010:83.