我國學說實務在探討因陳述所生之證券責任時，並未意識到意見表達與事實表述之區別，向來的探討焦點亦集中在後者身上。藉由美國聯邦最高法院作成Omnicare一案之契機，本文借助彼邦之案例法發展與學說討論，觀察意見表達之證券責任相關議題，並探討該案於美國言論自由之強迫商業言論脈絡下的意涵，以及監督義務與該等證券責任之交集與相互影響關係。在美國法的基礎上，本文再由我國法整體體系、證交法相關規定文義、法制淵源及實務見解等面向，主張在我國證交法相關規定下，應有就意見表達另行架構其體系與責任要件之必要，而進一步提出三種意見表達之證券責任態樣及其構成要件，並檢討該等責任於我國言論自由下之妥適性，以及意見表達責任與內控制度搭配下，得於我國公司治理發揮之功能。

While discussing the security liability resulting from the statement, scholars and practitioners in Taiwan are not aware of the distinction between the statement of fact and statement of opinion, and mostly focus on the former. Beginning from the Omnicare opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the article reviews the case laws and academic discussions in the U.S. in the context of securities liability, and then explores the implication of Omnicare under the lens of compelled commercial speech on the basis of Central Hudson and Zauderer and looks at the interaction between the Omnicare liability and the fiduciary duty of oversight, observing how the securities liability could promote the development of the fiduciary duty.Based on the research on the U.S. law, this article turns to the analysis of Taiwan law. From the holistic review of the legal system in Taiwan, literal reading of the Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act, the source of legal transplant of the relevant provisions therein as well as their application under current practice, this article argues that the liability for statement of opinion should be treated differently. Then this article articulates the elements for the statement of opinion to be held liable under the Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act, its constitutionality under the freedom of speech and its application in the form of internal control statement liability to promote the soundness of corporate governance of Taiwan companies.