法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
言論自由還是詐欺?-國際信評機構不準確評等之研究(Freedom of Speech or Fraud? A Study of the Inaccurate Ratings of International Credit Rating Agencies)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 陳盈如
出版日期: 2016.07
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 28 卷 第 1 期/87-149 頁
頁  數: 63 點閱次數: 1369
下載點數: 252 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 東吳大學 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 信用評等機構證券詐欺言論自由第一修正案利益衝突惡意對市場詐欺理論損失因果關係風險實現理論過失提供不實資訊
中文摘要: 每在大型金融危機過後,信用評等機構都受到各界嚴厲撻伐,指責其從事嚴重之利益衝突行為,導致信用評等幾乎無法作為投資風險控管之參考,反而是為發行人服務,膨脹評等結果或降低評等標準,以取悅對其付費之客戶。許多投資者紛紛對於信評機構提起各種損害賠償訴訟。然而,信評機構堅持其所為之評等報告乃為一「意見」(statement of opinion),主張其信用評等屬於美國憲法第一修正案所保護之「言論自由」範圍,原告必須要證明被告具有「真正惡意」(actual malice),始得請求損害賠償,而證明真正惡意之門檻相當之高,過去幾乎沒有信評機構敗訴之案例。然而,美國近年來實務或學說討論上,已漸轉趨認為,信用評等並非只是一個單純之預測意見;相反地,藉由其資訊與智識上之優勢,所作成之專業評估報告,信評機構應對信賴其資訊而做成投資決定之人負法律上責任。此一責任有可能是過失責任,亦有可能是證券詐欺之故意或未必故意責任。本文主張,應使信評機構負證券詐欺之故意或未必故意責任。金融市場瞬息萬變,金融商品之結構複雜度極高,因此若使信評機構負一般過失責任,則可能會造成信評產業之寒蟬效應,對於信評業之發展,亦不妥適。故以證券詐欺之故意或未必故意責任為宜。再者,我國關於證券詐欺之立法,乃參考美國反詐欺條款 Rule 10b-5 精神而來,雖然我國目前幾乎不見對於信評機構提起損害賠償訴訟,但美國這類型訴訟越來越多,實值得我們注意。本文以目前美國法院之判決以及相關學說,對於信評機構之責任做一探討,以期將來作為我國訴訟與法院判決之借鏡參考。
英文關鍵詞: Credit Rating AgenciesSecurities FraudFreedom of SpeechFirst AmendmentConflicts of InterestScienterFraud-on-the-Market TheoryLoss CausationMaterialization of RiskNegligent Misrepresentation
英文摘要: Credit rating agencies are criticized extensively following every financial crisis in the past decades. Those criticisms often lead them to engage in activities that actually are conflicts of interest, and their ratings then become minimally functional for their investment risk control activities. However, these activities contradict credit rating agencies' desire to give confidence to the issuer, in which the agencies inflate credit rating results or possibly even downgrade their own rating standards, in order to please the issuers who pay them fees for providing credit ratings. Some investors have brought a diverse set of suits against the credit rating agencies, including fraud and negligence misrepresentation. However, credit rating agencies have insisted that the ratings are just a statement of opinions. Therefore, if anything were to go wrong, they have no scienter on providing inaccurate ratings, or they have no duty to the reader, and the investors actually have no reasonable reliance on their ratings. Moreover, they have asserted that their ratings are protected by the First Amendment for freedom of speech, and the plaintiffs must prove they have actual malice, which is extremely hard to prove, in order to bring a suit against the credit rating agencies. However, more recent discussions and court decisions have changed their opinions about the liability of credit rating agencies. They believe credit rating agencies are more like accountants or securities analysts who employ their expertise and are in an independent position to evaluate the possibility of issuer default. The ratings are not just predictions or opinions but professional evaluations which are performed by financial experts who have non-accessible information. As a result, they should be liable for the ratings they provide. In addition, the liability can be a negligent misrepresentation liability or the intentional or reckless securities fraud liability according to many discussions. In this article, we believe the intentional or reckless securities fraud liability is more proper, because the financial market changes all the time, and the financial products are quite complicated. If we ask the credit rating agencies to take negligent misrepresentation liability, it will have the chilling effect on the credit rating industry. The legislation on securities fraud in Taiwan is also considered on par with the Rule 10b-5. Therefore, we believe this article can be the reference and basis for our future litigations and court decisions for credit rating agencies’ responsibilities.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、信評機構之發展與管制
一、信評機構之起源與發展
二、對信評機構之不準確評等加諸民事責任
(一)反對說
(二)贊成說
三、全球金融危機前對信評機構之管制
參、全球金融危機後對信評機構訴訟之發展
一、投資人對於信評機構之控訴
二、過去信評機構勝訴之原因
三、近來法院判決之轉向
肆、商業言論與憲法的言論自由保障
一、信用評等應受高度言論自由保護之見解
二、信用評等非高度言論自由保障範圍之見解
(一)信評機構非一般金融報導媒體
(二)信用評等乃為一商業言論
伍、英美習慣法上過失提供不實資訊之責任
一、可訴之不實資訊
二、有合理理由相信其所提供之評等結果為真
三、信評機構是否對其讀者負有義務
四、投資人實際且合理的信賴評等結果
(一)實際信賴
(二)合理信賴
陸、證券交易相關法律規範
一、全球金融風暴後之證券交易法改革
(一)1933 年證交法 Section 11 之過失責任
(二)1934 年證券交易法 Section 21D
二、美國法關於證券詐欺之規定
三、不準確評等報告可否成立證券詐欺
(一)被告遺漏重要事實或對重要事實為不實陳述
(二)惡意
(三)與購買或出售證券間相關
(四)信賴/交易因果關係要件
(五)經濟上損失及損失因果關係
柒、台灣證券交易法下對於不準確信用評等之民事賠償責任規範
一、資訊不實
二、公開說明書之內容虛偽不實
三、證券詐欺
(一)證券詐欺之賠償義務人
(二)有價證券之募集、發行、私募或買賣,不得有虛偽、詐欺或其他足致他人誤信之行為
(三)交易因果關係
(四)損失因果關係
(五)證券詐欺之主觀要件
捌、信評機構對於不準確評等應負何種民事責任?
玖、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
陳盈如,言論自由還是詐欺?-國際信評機構不準確評等之研究,東吳法律學報,第 28 卷 第 1 期,87-149 頁,2016年07月。
返回功能列