论文部分内容阅读
在飞度网络科技有限公司诉诺米多餐饮管理有限责任公司案件中,北京市一中院充满了司法能动主义的裁判结果极大推动了我国股权众筹发展。股权众筹融资行为的实质是一种证券发行,应当受到《证券法》的规制与调整。《合同法》与《证券法》的立法目的不同,导致两种裁判逻辑下归责原则和举证责任有所差异,后者更加倾向于保护投资者。此外,由中介平台代为起诉发行人似乎成为一条应对证券集团诉讼制度缺失的可选路径。
In the Fit Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Nimido Restaurant Management Co., Ltd. case, a court in Beijing is full of judicial activism, the result of the referendum has greatly promoted the development of equity crowdfunding in China. The essence of the equity crowdfunding financing is a kind of securities issuance, which should be regulated and adjusted by “Securities Law”. The different purposes of legislation between the “Contract Law” and the “Securities Law” lead to the difference between the principle of imputation under the two kinds of referee logic and the burden of proof, and the latter are more inclined to protect investors. In addition, the prosecution of issuers on behalf of the intermediary platform appears to be an alternative route to address the lack of litigation regime of securities companies.