论文部分内容阅读
美国法院在涉外证券欺诈案件的域外管辖权问题上经过40多年的发展,建立起一套以“效果”和“行为”为标准的判例体系。然而,2010年,美国联邦最高法院对涉外证券案件的首度介入却完全推翻了此一先例。在该案中,最高法院强调了“反域外适用推定”这一解释规则对联邦证券法域外适用的重要性,并针对1934年《证券交易法》第10(b)条之域外适用范围提出一项新的判断标准,即“交易标准”。然而就在该案判决公布后不到一天时间内,美国议会通过了著名的《多德一弗兰克法》,其中第929P(b)条和第929Y条又重新肯定了行为与效果原则,再次赋予了美国证券法域外效力。《多德—弗兰克法》是否推翻了莫里森案判决,在美国学界和司法界再次展开了热烈之讨论。美国证券交易委员会根据国会授权于2012年4月公布了调查研究报告,该报告态度上倾向于国会的观点。本文认为,莫里森案和《多德一弗兰克法》的对立反映了美国保守派和自由派在法律域外效力问题上的政治对立。不过在法律效力上,由于国会在《多德一弗兰克法》条文中没有区分立法管辖权和司法管辖权,导致莫里森案并未被推翻。从两年来的司法实践看,莫里森案的判决结论得到多起判例之接受,美国证券法之域外适用暂时被冻结。
After more than 40 years of development on the extraterritorial jurisdiction of foreign-related securities fraud cases, the U.S. courts have established a set of precedent systems based on “effect ” and “act ”. However, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first intervention in foreign-related securities cases completely reversed this precedent. In that case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the interpretation rules of “anti-extradition applicable presumption ” to the extraterritorial application of the federal securities laws and, in the light of the extraterritorial application of section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Proposed a new standard of judgment, “transaction standard ”. However, just less than a day after the verdict was announced, the U.S. Congress passed the famous “Dodd-Frank Law,” of which sections 929P (b) and 929Y reaffirmed the principle of conduct and effect and re-assigned The United States Securities Act extraterritorial effect. Whether the Dodd-Frank Act overturned the Morrison case ruling and heated discussions once again took place in the academic and judicial circles of the United States. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released a survey report in April 2012 based on the authorization of the National Assembly. The report tended to be parliamentary. This article argues that the opposition between the Morrison case and the “Dodd-Frank method” reflects the political opposition of the conservatives and liberals of the United States to the extraterritorial effect of the law. However, in terms of legal validity, the Morrison case was not overturned because Congress did not distinguish between legislative jurisdiction and jurisdiction in the provisions of the “Dodd-Frank method.” Judging from two years of judicial practice, Morrison’s verdict has been accepted by more than one precedent. The extraterritorial application of the U.S. securities law has been temporarily frozen.