论文部分内容阅读
“美国证券仲裁中的惩罚性损害赔偿裁决”一文根据判例、自律组织的建议案和有关学者的观点为基础材料而撰写,重点讨论了惩罚性损害赔偿在证券仲裁中的运用。文章分三个部分,摘要如下:文章的第一部分探讨了证券仲裁机构裁决惩罚性损害赔偿的权力问题。从分析仲裁员裁决惩罚性损害赔偿的权力入手,论述了证券仲裁员应具有相应的权力。以Garrity案为代表的美国法院判例认为应限制仲裁使用惩罚性损害赔偿裁决,但许多法院依据联邦和州仲裁法承认仲裁员有权作出法定和非法定的惩罚性损害赔偿裁决。自律组织肯定了证券仲裁机构裁决惩罚性损害赔偿的权力,并得到了相关司法判例的支持。为平衡投资者和证券行业的利益,自律组织就完善惩罚性损害赔偿裁决提出了一系列建议。作者对相关建议进行了分析,并提出了自己的看法。文章的第二部分讨论了对证券仲裁机构裁决惩罚性损害赔偿权力的限制问题。证券仲裁机构裁决惩罚性损害赔偿的权力可能受到间接或直接限制。直接限制包括:当事人直接约定排除惩罚性损害赔偿裁决,以及州法禁止性规定的限制。对于当事人的约定,自律组织持否定态度。州法对仲裁机构的限制,可能由于与联邦法律冲突或歧视仲裁机构而得不到承认。NASD就决定仲裁机构裁决惩罚性损害赔偿权力的法律提出了正式建议案。但作者经分析认为该建议不尽合理。当事人选择的州法中的规定是否可以剥夺仲裁机构惩罚性损害赔偿的权力,有两种相反观点。相比之下,支持仲裁员拥有权力的Mastrobuono案得到了更多的支持,也更符合公共利益。文章的第三部分讨论了对惩罚性损害赔偿数额的限制问题。对于应不应该限制惩罚性损害赔偿的数额,存在截然不同的两种观点。作者陈述、分析了不同观点,认为应限制赔偿数额。NASD建议对惩罚性损害赔偿的数额进行限制,并提出了不超过补偿性损害赔偿的两倍或750,000美元的较低者的限制模式。作者对该模式进行了比较分析,认为对其进行限制是必要的,但应采用就高不就低的模式。
The article “Punitive damages award in US securities arbitration” was written based on the precedents, the suggestions of self-regulatory organizations and the opinions of the scholars concerned. The article mainly discusses the application of punitive damages in securities arbitration. The article is divided into three parts, the summary is as follows: The first part of the article discusses the power of securities arbitration institutions to award punitive damages. Starting from the analysis of the power of the arbitrators to award the punitive damages, the paper argues that the securities arbitrators should have the corresponding powers. U.S. Courts, represented by Garrity, consider that punitive damages should be limited to arbitration awards, but many courts recognize federal and state arbitration awards as having the power to make statutory and non-statutory awards for punitive damages. Self-regulatory organizations have affirmed the power of securities arbitration institutions to award punitive damages, and have been supported by relevant judicial precedents. In order to balance the interests of investors and the securities industry, self-regulatory organizations put forward a series of suggestions on improving punitive damages awards. The author analyzes the relevant suggestions and puts forward his own views. The second part of the article discusses the restrictions on the power of securities arbitration organizations to award punitive damages. The power of a securities arbitration institution to award a punitive damages may be indirectly or directly limited. Direct restrictions include: the parties directly agreed to exclude punitive damages awards, as well as the prohibition of state law prohibitions. For the parties agreed, self-regulatory organizations take a negative attitude. State law restrictions on arbitration institutions may not be recognized because of conflicts with federal law or discrimination in arbitration. NASD made a formal proposal on the law that decided the arbitration agency ruled that punitive damages should be awarded. However, the author believes that the proposal is not reasonable. There are two opposing views on whether the provisions of the state law chosen by the parties can deprive the arbitration body of the power to punitive damages. In contrast, the Mastrobuono case, which supports the power of arbitrators, received more support and is more in the public interest. The third part of the article discusses the limitation of the amount of punitive damages. There are two very different points of view about the amount of punitive damages that should not be limited. The author states that different perspectives have been analyzed and that the amount of compensation should be limited. NASD recommends limiting the amount of punitive damages and proposes a mode of restriction no higher than twice the amount of compensatory damages or the lower of $ 750,000. The author conducted a comparative analysis of the model, that its restrictions are necessary, but should be used on the high not low mode.