壹、中文資料
一、書籍
1.王澤鑑，侵權行為法第一冊，自版，2000年
2.余雪明，證券交易法，證基會出版，2003年
3.林國全，證券交易法研究，元照出版，2000年
4.吳光明，證券交易法論，三民書局出版，2006年
5.邱聰智，新訂民法債編通則（上），自版，2003年1月新訂1版
6.姜世明，民事訴訟法基礎論，元照出版，2006年11月。
7.孫森焱，民法債編總論（上），自版，2005年12月修訂版
8.黃立，民法債編總論，自版，2000年9月2版
9.陳春山，證券交易法，五南書局出版，2007年1月8版
10.陳聰富，因果關係與損害賠償，元照出版，2004年
11.廖大穎，證券交易法導論，三民書局出版， 2008年修訂3版
12.廖大穎，證券市場與企業法制，元照出版，2007年
13.曾宛如，證券交易法原理，元照出版，2006年4版14.曾世雄著、詹森林續著，損害賠償法原理，新學林出版，2005年10月2版15.劉連煜，公司法理論與判決研究(一)，自版，1997年16.劉連煜，新證券交易法實例研習，元照出版， 2008年增訂6版17.潘維大，中美侵權行為法中不實表示民事侵權責任之比較，瑞興圖書出版，1995年18.賴英照，證券交易法逐條釋義第一冊，自版，1988年再版
19.賴英照，證券交易法逐條釋義第四冊，自版，1991年
20.賴英照，股市遊戲規則— 最新證券交易法解析，自版，2006年2月初版
21.謝易宏、黃鈵淳，證券求償之訴訟巧門—欺騙市場經典案例，五南出版，2006年
二、專書論文
1. 黃銘傑，日本最近證券交易法修正對我國之啟示—以行政及民事責任規範改 革為中心，現代公司法制之新課題—賴英照教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集，元照出版，2005年2. 曾宛如，有關有關不實財報會計師民事責任之探討，現代公司法制之新課題—賴英照教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集，元照出版，2005年
3. 陳春山，不實財務報告之民事責任法律適用爭議，現代公司法制之新課題，賴英照教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集，元照出版，2005年8月三、期刊論文
1.王澤鑑，損害賠償法之目的：損害填補、損害預防、懲罰制裁，月旦法學第123期，2005年8月
2.王澤鑑，損害概念及損害分類，月旦法學第124期，2005年9月
3.王澤鑑，民法總則在實務上的最新發展（二），台灣本土法學第53期，2003年12月
4.王志誠，公開說明書不實記載之民事責任，政大法學評論第82期，2004年12月5.王志誠，財報不實之民事責任，月旦財經法學雜誌第1期，2005年6月
6.邵慶平，證券訴訟上「交易因果關係」與「損害因果關係」之認定—評析高雄地院九一年重訴字第四四七號判決，台灣本土法學第79期，2006年2月
7.林仁光，論證券發行人不實揭露資訊之法律責任—兼論證券交易法修正草案第二十條，律師雜誌第297期，2004年6月
8.林鴻達，純粹經濟上損失的比較法研究─兼論英美法之案例發展趨勢，法官協會雜誌第3卷第2期，2001年12月
9.周賓凰、池祥萱、周冠男、龔怡霖，行為財務學：文獻回顧與展望，證券市場發展季刊第14卷第2期，2002年10.奚曉明、賈緯，證券市場虛假陳述民事賠償制度—最高人民法院2003年1月9日《關於審理證券市場因虛假陳述引發的民事賠償案件的若干規定》，證券法律評論第3卷，2003年10月
11.郭大維，我國證券詐欺訴訟「因果關係」舉證之探討—以美國法為借鏡，月旦法學教室第28期，2005年2月
12.張心悌，證券詐欺之因果關係與損害賠償—板橋地方法院九六年金字第二號民事判決評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌第101期，2007年12月
13.張心悌，從美國最高法院Dura案思考證券詐欺之損失因果關係，月旦法學雜誌第155期，2008年4月
14.莊永丞，論證券交易法第二十條證券詐欺損害賠償責任之因果關係，中原財經法學第8期，2000年6月15.莊永丞，證券交易法第二十條證券詐欺損害估算方法之之省思，台大法學論叢第34卷第2期，2005年3月16.曾宛如，論證券交易法第二十條之民事責任—以主觀要件與信賴為核心，台大法學論叢第33卷第5期，2004年9月17.廖大穎，論企業揭露不實資訊與損害賠償之因果關係—兼評台北地方法院八十七年度重訴字第1374號民事判決的認定基礎，月旦法學雜誌第153期，2008年2月
18.吳光明，證券投資損害民事訴權之探討，月旦法學雜誌第155期，2008年4月
19.劉連煜，財務不實之損害賠償責任：法制史上蜥蜴的復活？—證券交易法新增訂第二十條之一的評論，月旦民商法第11期，2006年5月
20.劉連煜、林俊宏，投資人團體訴訟新時代的來臨，月旦法學第111期，2004年8月。
四、學位論文
1.湯千慧，證券團體訴訟之本土化？—美國法濫訴問題之思考，台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文(2006年)
貳、英文資料
一、書籍
1.Robert Clark, CORPORATE LAW (1986)
2.James D. Cox, Robert W. Hillman, and Donald C. Langevoort, SECURITIES REGULATION CASES AND MATERIALS (4th ed. 2006)
3.Paul Davies, GOWER AND DAVIES’ PRINCIPLES OF MODERN COMPANY LAW (6th ed. 2003)
4.Simon Deakin & Basil Markesinis, TORT LAW (4th ed. 1999)
5.Paul Davies, DAVIES REVIEW OF ISSUER LIABILITY: FINAL REPORT(2007)
6.W. Page Keeton et al., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS (5th ed. 1984)
7.Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE LAW (1991)
8.Louis Loss and Joel Seligman, FUNDAMENTALS OF SECURITIES REGULATION (4th ed. 2001)
9.Louis Loss and Joel Seligman, SECURITIES REGULATION, Vol. VII and Vol. 9(3rd ed. 1992)
10.John C. Coffee, Jr., Joel Seligman, Hilary A. Sale, SECURITIES REGULATION CASES AND MATERIALS (10th ed. 2006)
11.Stuart Banner, ANGLO-AMERICAN SECURITIES REGULATION (1998)
二、期刊論文
1.Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Action, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 497(1991)
2.Janet Cooper Alexander, Rethinking Damages in Securities Class Actions, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1487 (1996)
3.Jennifer H. Arlen and William J. Carney, Vicarious Liability for Fraud on Securities Markets: Theory and Evidence, 1992 U. ILL. L. Rev. 691
4.Ian Ayres, Back to Basics: Regulating How Corporations Speak to the Market, 77 Va. L. Rev. 945 (1991)
5.Brad M. Barber et al., The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory and the Indicators of Common Stocks' Efficiency, 19 J. Corp. L. 285 (1994)
6.Jeseph H. Beale, The Proximate Consequences of an Act, 33 HARV. L. REV. 633(1920)
7.Victor Bernard et al., Challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis: Limits to the Applicability of the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory, 73 Neb. L. Rev. 781(1994)
8.Herbert Bernstein , Civil Liability for Pure Economic Loss under American Tort Law, 46 AM. J. COMP. L. 111(1998)
9.Barbara Black, Fraud on The Market: A Criticism of Dispensing With Reliance Requirements In Certain Open Market Transactions, 62 N. C. L. Rev. 435 (1984)
10.Barbara Black, The Strange Case of Fraud on the Market: A Label in Search of a Theory, 52 Alb. L. Rev. 923 (1988)
11.Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Reassessing Damages in Securities Fraud Class Actions, 66 Md. L. Rev. 348(2007)
12.John C. Coffee, Jr., Causation by Presumption? Why the Supreme Court Should Reject Phantom Losses and Reverse Broudo, 60 Bus. Law. 533(2005)
13.Bradford Cornell & R. Gregory Morgan, Using Finance Theory to Measure Damages in Fraud on the Market Cases, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 883(1990)
14.Bradford Cornell & James C. Rutten, Market Efficiency, Crashes, and Securities Litigation, 81 Tul. L. Rev. 443(2006)
15.Patrick J. Coughlin et al, What’s Brewing in Dura v. Broudo? The Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Review the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Its Import for Securities-Fraud Litigation, 37 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1(2005)
16.James D. Cox, Making Securities Fraud Class Actions Virtuous, 39 Ariz. L. Rev. 497(1997)
17.Paula J. Dalley, The Law of Deceit, 1790-1860: Continuity Amidst Change, 39 Am. J. Legal Hist. 405(1995)
18.Peter J. Dennin, Note, Which Came First, The Fraud or The Market: Is The Fraud-Created-The Market Theory Valid under Rule 10b-5, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2611(2001)
19.Dickey & Mayer, Effect on Rule 10b-5 Damages of the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act: A Forward-Looking Assessment, 51 BUS. L. 1203(1996)
20.William O. Douglas & George E. Bates, The Federal Securities Act of 1933, 43 Yale L. J. 171(1933)
21.Michael Duffy, “Fraud on the Market”: Judicial Approaches to Causation and Loss from Securities Nondisclosure in the United States, Canada and Australia, 29 MELB. U. L. REV. 621(2005)
22.Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, Optimal Damages in Securities Cases, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 611 (1985)
23.Jay W. Eisenhofer et al., Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation, and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-Based Theory of Loss Causation, 59 Bus. Law. 1419(2004)
24.David S. Escoffery, Note, A Winning Approach to Loss Causation Under Rule 10b-5 in Light of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 68 Fordham L. Rev. 1781(2000)
25.Allen Ferrell and Atanu Saha, The Loss Causation Requirement for Rule 10B-5 Cause of Action: The Implications of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 63 Bus. Law. 163(2007)
26.Jared Tobin Finkelstein, Note, Rule 10b-5 Damage Computation: Application of Financial Theory to Determine Net Economic Loss, 51 FORDHAM L. REV. 838(1983)
27.Jill Fisch, Cause for Concern: Causation and Federal Securities Fraud, available at http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn/wps/papers/240.
28.William O. Fisher, Does the Efficient Market Theory Help Us Do Justice in a Time of Madness, 54 Emory L. J. 843(2005)
29.Daniel Fischel, Use of Modern Finance Theory in Securities Fraud Cases Involving Actively Traded Securities, 38 Bus. Law. 1 (1982)
30.Daniel Fischel, Efficient Capital Markets, the Crash and the Fraud on the Market Theory, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 907(1989)
31.James Fleming, Jr. and Oscar S. Gray, Misrepresentation—Part I, 37 Md. L. Rev. 286(1977)
32.Merritt B. Fox, Demystifying Causation in Fraud-on-the-Market-Actions, 60 Bus. Law. 507 (2005)
33.Merritt Fox, After Dura: Causation in Fruad-On-The-Market Actions, 31 J. Corp. L. 829(2006)
34.Robert A. Fumerton, Market Overreaction and Loss Causation, 62 Bus. Law. 89(2006)
35.Theresa A. Gabaldon, Causation, Courts, and Congress: A Study of Contradiction in the Federal Securities Laws, 31 B.C. L. Rev. 1027(1990)
36.Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos, Frauds, Markets, and Fraud-on-the-Market: The Tortured Transition of Justifiable Reliance from Deceit to Securities Fraud, 49 U. Miami L. Rev. 671(1995)
37.Ronald J. Gilson & Reinier H. Kraakman, The Mechanisms of Market Efficiency, 70 Va. L. Rev. 549(1984)
38.Carol R. Goforth, The Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis—An Inadequate Justification for the Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption, 27 Wake Forest L. Rev. 895(1992)
39.John C.P. Goldberg, Anthony J. Sebok & Benjamin Zipursky, The Place of Reliance in Fraud, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 1001(2006)
40.Zohar Goshen & Giden Parchomovsky, The Essential Goal of Securities Regulation, 55 Duke L.J. 711(2006)
41.Michael D. Green, Apportionment, Victim, Reliance and Fraud: A Comment, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 1001, 1035(2006)
42.Leon Green, Deceit, 16 Va. L. Rev. 749, 750(1930)
43.Walton H. Hamilton, The Ancient Maxim Caveat Emptor, 40 YALE L.J. 1133, 1 (1931)
44.Julie A. Herzog, Fraud Created The Market: An Unwise and Unwarranted Extension of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, 63 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 359 (1995).
45.Leonard Hoffman, Causation, 121 L.Q.R. 592(2005)
46.Michael J. Kaufman, Loss Causation: Exposing a Fraud on Securities Law Jurisprudence, 24 Ind. L. Rev. 357 (1991)
47.Patrick J. Kelly, Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: History, Theory, and The Present Darkness, 69 WASH. U. L. Q. 49(1991)
48.Friedrich Kessler and Edith Fine , Culpa in Contrahendo , Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study, 77 HARV. L. REV.(1964)
49.Andrew R. Klein, Comparative Fault and Fraud, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 983(2006)
50.Jon Koslow, Note, Estimating Aggregate Damages in Class-Action Litigation Under Rule 10b-5 for Purposes of Settlement, 59 FORMHAM L. REV. 811 (1991)
51.James M. Landies, The Legislative History of The Securities Act of 1933, Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 29(1959)
52.Donald. C. Langevoort, Theories, Assumptions, and Securities Regulation: Market Efficiency Revisited, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 851(1992)
53.Donald C. Langevoort, Capping Damages for Open-market Securities Fraud, 38 Ariz. L. Rev. 639(1996)
54.Donald C. Langevoort, Taming the Animal Spirits of the Stock Market: A Behavioral Approach to Securities Regulation, 97 Nw U. L. Rev. 135(2002)
55.Donald C. Langevoort, Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud-on-the-Market, available at http://ssrn.cm/AbstractID=1026316
56.Yvonne Ching Ling Lee, The Elusive Concept of “Materiality” under U.S. Federal Securities Laws, 40 Willamette L. Rev. 661(2004)
57.Baruch Lev & Meiring deVilliers, Stock Price Crashes and 10b-5 Damages: A Legal, Economic and Policy Analysis, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 7 (1994)
58.Michael Lobban, Nineteenth Century Frauds in Company Formation: Derry v Peek in Context , 112 L.Q.R. 287(1996)
59.Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Bromberg, Compensatory Damages in Rule 10b-5 Actions: Pragmatic Justice or Chaos ? 30 SETON HALL L. REV. 1083 (2000)
60.Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, Good Finance, Bad Economics: An Analysis of the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 1059(1990)
61.Jonathan R. Macey et. al., Lessons From Financial Economics: Materiality, Reliance, and Extending the Reach of Basic v. Levinson, 77 Va. L. Rev. 1017(1991)
62.John A. MacKerron, The Price Integrity Cause of Action under Rule 10b-5: Limiting and Expanding The Use of The Fraud on The Market Theory, 69 Or. L. Rev. 177 (1990)
63.Paul G. Mahoney, Precaution Costs and the Law of Fraud in Impersonal Markets, 78 VA. L. REV. 623(1992)
64.Andrew L. Merritt, A Consistent Model of Loss Causation in Securities Fraud Litigation: Suiting the Remedy to the Wrong, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 469 (1988)
65.Robert G. Newkirk, Comment, Sufficient Efficiency: Fraud on the Market in the Initial Public Offering Context, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1393(1991)
66.John M. Newman, Jr. et al., Basic Truths: The Implications of the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory for Evaluating the “Misleading” and “Materiality” Elements of Securities Fraud Claims, 20 J. Corp. L. 571(1995)
67.Note, Reliance Requirement in Private Actions Under SEC Rule 10b-5, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 584(1975)
68.Note, The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 1143(1982)
69.Ann Morales Olazábal, Loss Causation in Fraud-On-The-Market Cases Post-Dura Pharmaceuticals, 3 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 337(2006)
70.Jeffrey L. Oldham, Comment, Taking “Efficient Markets” out of The Fraud-On-The-Market Doctrine after The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 97 Nw. U.L. Rev. 995(2003)
71.Nicola W. Palmieri, Good Faith Disclosures Required during Precontractual Negotiations, 24 Seton Hall L. Rev.(1993)
72.Jill Poole and James Devenny, Reforming Damages for Misrepresentation : The Case for Coherent Aims and Principles, JBL 269(2007)
73.James C. Spindler, Why Shareholders Want Their CEOS to Lie More After Dura Pharmaceuticals, 95 Geo. L. J. 653(2007)
74.Richard C. Sauer, The Erosion of The Materiality Standard in The Enforcement of The Federal Securities Laws, 62 Bus. Law. 317(2007)
75.Joel Seligman, The Merits Do Matter: A Comment on Professor Grundfest’s “Disimplying Private Rights of Action Under the Federal Securities Laws: The Commission’s Authority.”, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 438(1994)
76.Joseph De Simone, Note, Should Fraud on the Market Theory Extend to the Context of Newly Issued Securities? 61 Fordham L. Rev. S151(1993)
77.Harry Shulman, Civil Liability and the Securities Act, 43 Yale. L. J. 227(1933)
78.Douglas A. Smith, Note, Fraud on the Market: Short Seller’s Reliance on Market Price Integrity, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1003(2005)
79.Robert Norman Sobol, The World Wide Web and the Securities Law Doctrines of Truth-on-the-Market, 25 J. Corp. L.85(1999)
80.Lynn A. Stout, The Mechanism of Market Inefficiency: An Introduction of the New Finance, 28 J. Corp. L. 635(2003)
81.Robert B. Thompson, The Measure of Recovery Under Rule 10b-5: A Restitution Alternative to Tort Damages, 37 Vand. L. Rev. 349 (1984)
82.Robert B. Thompson, Simplicity and Certainty in the Measure of Recovery under Rule 10B-5, 51 Bus. Law. 1177 (1996)
83.Robert B. Thompson, Federal Corporate Law: Torts and Fiduciary Duty, 31 J. Corp. L. 877(2006)
84.Madge S. Thorsen, Richard A. Kaplan & Scott Hakala, Recovering the Economics of Loss Causation, 6 J. Bus. & Sec. L. 93 (2006)
85.Wallace Wen-Yeu Wang and Chen Jian-Lin, Reforming China’s Securities Civil Actions: Lessons from PSLRA in the U.S. and Government-Sanctioned Non-profiting Enforcement in Taiwan, 21 Colum. J. Asian L. 115(2008)