美國證劵詐欺損失因果關係要件之研究

10.6509/TLM.201207_63(7).0004

戴銘昇

證券詐欺 ； 損失因果關係 ； 對市場詐欺理論 ； securities fraud ； loss causation ； fraud-on-the-market theory

法令月刊

63卷7期（2012 / 07 / 01）

66 - 85

繁體中文

美國證券詐欺損失因果關係於1974年Schlick案中，從交易因果關係中被獨立出來。之後更已廣被聯邦各級法院所承認。1981年Huddieston案將損失因果關係定性為必須符合「涉及標準」。1988年聯邦最高法院Basic案引進了對市場詐欺理論推定交易因果關係的存在，卻使得此一要件的爭議，更形激烈。1995年私人證券訴訟改革法制定後，將損失因果關係加以明定，惟仍沒辦法解決損失因果關係内涵的爭議。2005年聯邦最高法院Dura案否定僅證明以受灌水的價格買入證券即可成立損失因果關係，本案做成後，損失因果關係的要件開始成為鎂光燈的焦點、聚訟之地，有認為使得因果關係的判斷更加複雜。

Loss causation of securities fraud was not isolated from the transaction causation until 1974 Schlick decision. This element has been admitted by federal courts broadly. 1981 Huddles ton decision defined loss causation as it has to comply with ＂touch upon test.＂ 1988 Basic decision introduced fraud-on-the-market theory to presume the existence of transaction causation, this theory made loss causation more controversial. Although Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 pro- vides the loss causation explicitly, it cannot resolve the controversy of the intent of loss causation. 2005 Dura decision rejected that loss causation can be established by merely allege the price inflation. In the wake of this decision, loss causation begins to garner scholarly attention and litigations over this requirement exploded, some thought it makes the judgment more complicated.

1. Black, Barbara(1987).Commentary: The Second Circuit's Approach to the 'in Connection with' Requirement of Rule 10b-5.Brook. L. Rev.,53,539.
2. Coffee, John C., Jr.(2005).Causation by Presumption? Why the Supreme Court Should Reject Phantom Losses and Reverse Broudo.Bus. Law.,60,533.
3. Duffy, Michael(2005).'Fraud on the Market': Judicial Approaches to Causation and Loss from Securities Non-disclosure in the United States, Canada and Australia.MELB. U. L. REV.,29,621.
4. Escoffery, David S.(2000).A Winning Approach to Loss Causation under Rule 10b-5 in Light of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").FORDHAM L. REV.,68,1781.
5. Fisch, Jill E.(2009).Cause for Concern: Causation and Federal Securities Fraud.Iowa L. Rev.,94,811.
6. Goldberg, John C. P.,Sebok, Anthony J.,Zipursky, Benjamin C.(2006).SYMPOSIUM: DAN B. DOBBS CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC TORT LAW: The Place of Reliance in Fraud.Ariz. L. Rev.,48,1001.
7. Kant, Jacob M.(2006).Notes, Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: Not Really a Loss Causation Case.La. L. Rev.,67,257.
8. Kaufman, Michael J.(1991).Loss Causation Exposing A Fraud on Securities Law Jurisprudence.Ind. L. Rev.,24,357.
9. LOSS, LOUIS,SELIGMAN, JOEL(2004).FUNDAMENTALS OF SECURITIES REGULATION.Aspen Publishers.
10. Merritt, Andrew L.(1988).A Consistent Model of Loss Causation in Securities Fraud Litigation: Suiting the Remedy to the Wrong.TEX. L. REV.,66,469.
11. Mone, Mathias E.,Pachter, Tamar(1989).Opposing Proof of Reliance and Causation.PLI/Corp,653,721.
12. Neas, Jerod(2007).Dura Duress: The Supreme Court Mandates a More Rigorous Pleading and Proof Requirement for Loss Causation under Rule 10b-5 Class Actions.U. Colo. L. Rev.,78,347.
13. Olazábal, Ann Morales(2006).Loss Causation in Fraud-On-The-Market Cases Post-Dura Pharmaceuticals.Berkeley Bus. L. J.,3,337.
14. Skey, Elizabeth(2009).The Private Securities Fraud Claim: What Has Dura's Effect Been on the Standard for Loss Causation at Summary Judgment?.Santa Clara L. Rev.,49,565.
15. Thorson, Ryan S.(2006).Securities Law-The Artificially Inflated Purchase Price Theory: An Economically Sound yet Legally Insufficient Method of Pleading and Proving Loss Causation, Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).Wyo. L. Rev.,6,623.
16. 孫森焱(2008)。民法債編總論。
17. 戴銘昇(2007)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立政治大學法律學研究所。

1. 黃朝琮(2021)。證券詐欺責任中之因果關係與損害－實務見解之觀察。中正財經法學，23，119-168。
2. 張心悌(2021)。證券詐欺損失因果關係之再思考－從美國最高法院Dura案後之發展觀察。臺北大學法學論叢，117，55-131。
3. 鄭婷嫻(2019)。論對市場詐欺理論於美國法制動態與我國實務運用更迭。東海大學法學研究，58，143-189。
4. (2022)。財報不實民事責任之因果關係──從最高法院 102 年度台上字第 1294 號判決談起。月旦法學雜誌，320，90-116。