臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：論Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo : 美國證券詐欺因果關係要件之再建構與對我國證券交易法制之啟示
書刊名：歐美研究
作者：陳俊仁 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chen, Chun-jen
出版日期：2009
卷期：39:4
頁次：頁713-767
主題關鍵詞：證券詐欺；因果關係；信賴；交易因果關係；損失因果關係；Securities fraud；Causation；Reliance；Transaction causation；Loss causation
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(11) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:11
  • 共同引用共同引用:271
  • 點閱點閱:160
證券詐欺規範，除對受害投資人提供救濟外，亦可嚇阻證券詐欺之發生，更關乎證券市場健全與投資人信心；各國證券詐欺法制，皆致力尋求「行為人責任」與「投資人保護」之均衡。美國證券詐欺之信賴要件與損失因果關係要件，即著眼於此。美國判例法於採行效率市場假說與對市場詐欺理論後，呈現由「信賴要件推定」朝向「損失因果關係要件推定」發展之趨勢，此將使其失去調和功能外，亦使證券詐欺理論產生概念的混淆。美國聯邦最高法院Dura一案，有效導正此發展趨勢，於美國證券交易法制，影響深遠；此亦為我國證券交易法制，帶來借鏡攻錯之參考。
Besides their remedial and deterrent functions, the anti-fraud provisions of securities regulation play an essential role in promoting the integrity of the securities market and investor confidence. Ac-cordingly, framers of securities regulation in different jurisdictions share a view to balance “wrongdoer accountability” and “investor protection”. The pleading rules of “reliance” and “loss causation” in private securities fraud cases are crafted for this very purpose. After the Court’s adoption of the “efficient market hypothesis” and the “fraud-on-the-market theory”, there is a perceived trend to read “fraud-on-the-market theory” broadly in order to extend the pre-sumption from “reliance” to “loss causation”. Without a doubt, this will be to the detriment of the development of securities regulation and creates confusion. The Supreme Court’s Dura decision effectively rectified the expansive reading and had profound implications for U.S. securities regulation and will henceforth serve as an influential and informative reference for securities law in Taiwan.
期刊論文
1.Coffee, John C. Jr.(2005)。Causation by Presumption? Why the Supreme Court should Reject Phantom Losses and Reverse Broudo。Business Lawyer，60，533-548。  new window
2.Samuelson, P. A.(1937)。A note on measurement of utility。The Review of Economic Studies，4(2)，155-161。  new window
3.邵慶平(2006)。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。臺灣本土法學雜誌，79，47-66。  延伸查詢new window
4.Murdock, Charles W.(1990)。The Evolution of Effective Remedies for Minority Shareholders and Its Impact Upon Valuation of Minority Shares。Notre Dame L. Rev.，65，425-489。  new window
5.Frey, A. H.(1941)。The Distribution of Corporate Dividends。U. Pa. L. Rev.，89，735-763。  new window
6.蘇永欽(2002)。再論一般侵權行為的類型--從體系功能的角度看修正後的違法侵權規定。政大法學評論，69，167-201。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.王千維(19981200)。民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構分析以及損害賠償之基本原則。政大法學評論，60，201-230。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.王千維(20010600)。民事損害賠償責任法上「違法性」問題初探。政大法學評論，66，1-66。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.曾宛如(20040900)。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。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，33(5)，51-93。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.莊永丞(20020600)。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，8，147-183。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.莊永丞(20050300)。證券交易法第二十條證券詐欺損害估算方法之省思。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，34(2)，123-180。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.Fama, Eugene F.(1970)。Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work。The Journal of Finance，25(2)，383-417。  new window
13.楊佳元(20050600)。侵權行為過失責任之體系與一般要件。臺北大學法學論叢，56，205-254。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.陳自強(20001100)。民法侵權行為法體系之再構成--民法第一九一條之三之體系地位。臺灣本土法學雜誌，16，47-70。  延伸查詢new window
15.郭大維(2005)。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，28，79-90。  延伸查詢new window
16.郭大維(2006)。論我國證券交易法第二十條之信賴要件與因果關係。臺北大學法學論叢，58，43-91。  延伸查詢new window
17.黃立(2006)。德國民法損害賠償規範之研究。政大法學評論，93，57-98。  延伸查詢new window
18.劉連煜(2001)。證券詐欺與因果關係。月旦法學雜誌，78，22-23。  延伸查詢new window
19.Algero, M. G.(1999)。In Defense of Forum Shopping: a Realistic Look at Selecting a Venue。Nebraska Law Review，78，79-112。  new window
20.American Bar Association(2006)。Report on Contingent Fees in Class Action Litigation。Review on Litigation，25，459-496。  new window
21.Art, R. C.(2003)。Shareholder Rights and Remedies in Close Corporations: Oppression, Fiduciary Duties, and Reasonable Expectations。Journal of Corporation Law，28(3)，371-418。  new window
22.Barclay, M.、Torchio, F. C.(2001)。A Comparison of Trading Models Used for Calculating Aggregate Damages in Securities Litigation。Law and Contemporary Problems，64(2/ 3)，105-136。  new window
23.Beasley, J. W., Jr.(1986)。Report of the Task Force on Statue of Limitations for Implied Actions。Business Lawyer，41(2)，645-666。  new window
24.Beomberg, A. R.(1974)。Are There Limits to Rule 10b-5?。Business Lawyer，29，167-178。  new window
25.Burbank, S. B.(2002)。Semtek, Forum Shopping, and Federal Common Law。Notre Dame Law Review，77(4)，1027-1056。  new window
26.Burch, E. C.(2007)。Reassessing Damages in Securities Fraud Class Actions。Maryland Law Review，66(2)，348-397。  new window
27.Burson, M. C.(1989)。Securities Law: An Argument for Recognition of an Implied Private Cause of Action for Shareholders under Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the Context of Going Private。Notre Dame Law Review，64(4)，606-627。  new window
28.Choi, S. J.(2006)。Behavioral Economics and the Regulation of Public Offerings。Lewis and Clark Law Review，10，85。  new window
29.Coffee, John C. Jr.(2005)。Loss Causation after Dura: Something for Everyone。New York Law Journal，231，883-924。  new window
30.Cornell, B.、Morgan, R. G.(1990)。Using Finance Theory to Measure Damages in Fraud on the Market Cases。UCLA Law Review，37，883-924。  new window
31.Coughlin, P. J.、Isaacson, E. A.、Daley, J. D.(2005)。What's Brewing in Dura v. Broudo?: the Plaintiffs' Attorneys Review the Supreme Court's Opinion and Its Import for Securities - Fraud Litigation。Loyola University Chicago Law Journal，37(1)，1-42。  new window
32.Dennis, R. J.(1984)。Materiality and the Efficient Capital Market Model: a Recipe for the Total Mix。William and Mary Law Review，25(3)，373-420。  new window
33.Dickey, J. C.(2007)。Current Trends in Federal Securities Litigation。Practicing Law Institute/Corporation，1620，339-496。  new window
34.Dobris, J. C.(1997)。Why Trustee Investors often Prefer Dividends to Capital Gain and Debt Investors to Equity - a Daunting Principal and Income Problem。Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal，32，255-300。  new window
35.Dutton, C. J.(2006)。Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: Extracting Teeth from Securities Regulation。North Kentucky Law Review，33(1)，153-182。  new window
36.Eisenhofer, Jay W.、Jarvis, Geoffrey C.、Banko, James R.(2004)。Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-based Theory of Loss Causation。Business Lawyer，59(4)，1419-1445。  new window
37.Escoffery, D. 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 Law Review，68(5)，1781-1826。  new window
38.Finnerty, J.、Pushner, G.(2003)。An Improved Two-trader Model for Measuring Damages in Securities Fraud Class Actions。Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance，8(2)，213-264。  new window
39.Fischel, D. R.(1982)。Use of Modern Finance Theory in Securities Fraud Cases Involving Actively Traded Securities。Business Law Journal，38，1-20。  new window
40.Fox, M. B.(2005)。Demystifying Causation in Fraud-on-the-market Actions。Business Lawyer，60(2)，507-532。  new window
41.Fox, M. B.(2005)。Understanding Dura。Business Lawyer，60(4)，1547-1576。  new window
42.Fox, M. B.(2006)。After Dura: Causation in Fraud-on-the-market Actions。Journal of Corporation Law，31(3)，829-876。  new window
43.Frederick, S.、Loewenstein, G.、O'Donoghue, T.(2002)。Time Discounting and Time Preference: a Critical Review。Journal of Economic Literature，40(2)，351-401。  new window
44.Fumerton, R. A.(2006)。Market Overreaction and Loss Causation。Business Lawyer，62(1)，89-102。  new window
45.Gordon, James D. III(2004)。Acorns and Oaks: Implied Rights of Action under the Securities Acts。Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance，10(1)，62-97。  new window
46.Helms, B. C.(2006)。The Supreme Court's Dura Decision Unfortunately Secures a Brighter Future for 10b-5 Defendants。DePaul Law Review，56(1)，189-222。  new window
47.Hoffman, D. B.(2005)。To Certify or Not: a Modest Proposal for Evaluating the "Superiority" of a Class Action in the Presence of Government Enforcement。Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics，18(4)，1383-1394。  new window
48.Kantrow, J. M.(2006)。Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: Not Really a Loss Causation Case。Louisiana Law Review，67(1)，257-287。  new window
49.Ladner, G. W.(1994)。Corporate Law: Developing Uniformity in Limitations Periods for Implied Private Actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934。Villanova Law Review，39(4)，1033-1056。  new window
50.McFarland, S. B.(2006)。A One-two Punch to Forum Shopping: Recent Judicial and Legislative Amendments to South Carolina's Corporate venue Jurisprudence。South Carolina Law Review，57(3)，465-488。  new window
51.Morrissey, D. J.(2006)。Another Look at the Law of Dividends。The University of Kansas Law Review，54(2)，449-488。  new window
52.Mullenix, L. S.(2005)。Should Mississippi Adopt a Class-action Rule Balancing the Equities: Ten Considerations that Mississippi Rulemakers Ought to Take into Account in Evaluating Whether to Adopt a State Class-action Rule。Mississippi College Law Review，24(2)，217-260。  new window
53.Ryan, D. F.(2005)。Yet Another Bough on the "Judicial Oak": the Second Circuit Clarifies Inquiry Notice and Its Loss Causation Requirement under the PSLRA in Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co.。St. John's Law Review，79(2)，485-520。  new window
54.Savett, S. R.(2007)。Plaintiffs' Vision of Securities Litigation: Trends/strategies in 2005-2007。Practicing Law Institute/Corporation，1620，57-128。  new window
55.Shea, M.(2006)。Securities Fraud Litigation - Lost in Causation: Investors not Entitled to Presumption of Loss Causation in Fraud-onthe-market Cases - Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (2005)。Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy，11，255-263。  new window
56.Shepherd, C. W.、Scott, D. F., Jr.(1975)。Corporate Dividend Policy: Some Legal and Financial Aspects。American Business Law Journal，13(2)，199-223。  new window
57.Spindler, J. C.(2007)。Why Shareholders Want Their CEOs to Lie More after Dura Pharmaceuticals?。Georgetown Law Journal，95(3)，653-692。  new window
58.Starr, Z. A.(1991)。Fraud on the Market and the Substantive Theory of Class Actions。St. John's Law Review，65(2)，441-466。  new window
59.Thorsen, Madge S.、Kaplan, Richard A.、Hakala, Scott(2006)。Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation。Journal of Business and Securities Law，6，93-126。  new window
60.Wright, Richard W.(1985)。Causation in Tort Law。California Law Review，73(6)，1735-1828。  new window
學位論文
1.劉連煜(1986)。論證券交易法上之民事責任，臺北。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.陳春山(2003)。證券交易法論。證券交易法論。臺北市：五南。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳聰富(2007)。因果關係與損害賠償。台北：元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.廖大穎(200505)。證券交易法導論。臺北：三民。  延伸查詢new window
4.Hazen, Thomas Lee(2002)。The Law of Securities Regulation。West Group。  new window
5.Cox, J. D.、Hillman, R. W.、Langevoort, D. C.(2003)。Securities Regulation: Cases and Materials。New York, NY：CITIC Publishing House。  new window
6.劉連煜(2007)。現代公司法。臺北：新學林。  延伸查詢new window
7.Kingdon, John W.(1997)。Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies。Harper Collins Publishers。  new window
8.孫森焱(1988)。民法債編總論。三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
9.王澤鑑(1998)。侵權行為法。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
10.余雪明(2003)。證券交易法。財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨市場發展基金會。  延伸查詢new window
11.劉連煜(2006)。新證券交易法實例研習。臺北：元照出版有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.賴英照(2006)。股市遊戲規則--最新證券交易法解析。台北：賴英照。  延伸查詢new window
13.王文宇(2005)。公司法論。元照。  延伸查詢new window
14.Keeton, W. Page、Dobbs, D. B.、Keeton, R. E.、Owen, D. G.(1984)。Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts。West Publishing Co.。  new window
15.余雪明(1983)。證券管理。證券管理。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
16.林國全(2000)。證券交易法與證券行政。證券交易法研究。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
17.陳聰富(2007)。因果關係之判斷－臺北市國家賠償案件分析，因果關係與損害賠償。因果關係之判斷－臺北市國家賠償案件分析，因果關係與損害賠償。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
18.曾宛如(2000)。證券交易法原理。證券交易法原理。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
19.劉連煜(1995)。論證券交易法一般反詐欺條款之因果關係問題。公司法理論與判決研究 (一)。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
20.賴英照(1988)。證券交易法逐條釋義第一冊。證券交易法逐條釋義第一冊。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
21.賴源河(1997)。證券管理法規。證券管理法規。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
22.Jennings, R. W.、Marsh, H., Jr.(1992)。Securities Regulation, Cases and Materials。Securities Regulation, Cases and Materials。New York, NY。  new window
23.Loss, L.(1961)。Securities Regulation III。Securities Regulation III。Saint Paul, MN。  new window
24.Ratner, D. L.(1996)。Securities Regulation in a Nutshell。Securities Regulation in a Nutshell。Saint Paul, MN。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：925（臺灣：923，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1725833 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67523802
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上