【摘要】：新三板市場自2001年發(fā)展至今,經(jīng)過了近二十多年的積淀,在資本市場取得了驚人的成績。由于這一融資平臺(tái)系為廣大中小企業(yè)打造,不光在國內(nèi),甚至在國外都成為資產(chǎn)市場的關(guān)注點(diǎn)。但是,新三版市場當(dāng)中的虛假陳述行為不時(shí)發(fā)生,其中證券專業(yè)服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)扮演了重要的角色。證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)的不法行為,極大傷害了投資者的合法利益,造成投資熱情急劇下降。透過關(guān)于新三板市場的法律法規(guī),不難發(fā)現(xiàn),關(guān)于證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)的民事責(zé)任,相關(guān)立法并沒有做出詳細(xì)的規(guī)定,無形之中給法官判案也增加了不小的壓力。而且,在實(shí)踐當(dāng)中,一旦發(fā)生證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)侵權(quán)事件,投資者由于處于弱勢(shì)地位,往往不能很好地維護(hù)自身的合法權(quán)益,只能“自認(rèn)倒霉”。違規(guī)行為得不到法律的嚴(yán)懲,使得證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)變本加厲。因此,面對(duì)這一問題,我們需要從立法上明晰其民事責(zé)任,以此來加強(qiáng)法官審判證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)民事糾紛的可操作性,進(jìn)而更好地規(guī)范中介機(jī)構(gòu)的行為。此外,也與國家倡導(dǎo)的“資本市場國際化”戰(zhàn)略不謀而合。文章從我國新三板市場近幾年的發(fā)展情況展開,通過分析新三板市場發(fā)生的證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)違規(guī)事件,找出現(xiàn)行新三板市場法律機(jī)制的不足,同時(shí)吸取發(fā)達(dá)國家多年以來關(guān)于場外市場的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn),為證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)民事責(zé)任構(gòu)建一個(gè)合乎邏輯的框架體系。本文以證券中介服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)因不法行為造成投資者損失所招致的民事責(zé)任為研究對(duì)象,首先介紹了近年來新三板市場的發(fā)展情況,并通過證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)在企業(yè)掛牌當(dāng)中的不同分工,進(jìn)一步了解證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)的工作內(nèi)容。其次,然后通過比較分析理論界關(guān)于證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)侵權(quán)的民事性質(zhì),對(duì)證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)的民事責(zé)任進(jìn)行了深入分析,結(jié)合近幾年新三板市場運(yùn)行的基礎(chǔ)情況,采取“侵權(quán)責(zé)任說”更為恰當(dāng)。接著,從實(shí)體法(Substantive Law)的角度,對(duì)證券專業(yè)中介機(jī)構(gòu)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的四大“構(gòu)成要件”(主觀過錯(cuò)、加害行為、損害事實(shí)以及因果關(guān)系)進(jìn)行了一一論述,同時(shí)提出,對(duì)中介機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)適用“過錯(cuò)推定”的歸責(zé)原則。最后談到了當(dāng)前投資者面臨民事訴訟所遇到的一些困境,對(duì)新三板市場遇到的糾紛提出一些合理化的建議。包括借鑒美國場外交易市場中關(guān)于“集團(tuán)訴訟”的相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)、取消證券民事訴訟當(dāng)中“訴訟前置程序”的規(guī)定、構(gòu)建“中介機(jī)構(gòu)執(zhí)業(yè)責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)”以及“多元化的糾紛解決之道”。
[Abstract]:The new three-board market has been developed since 2001, after nearly 20 years of accumulation, in the capital market has made amazing achievements. Because this financing platform is for the vast number of small and medium-sized enterprises, not only in the domestic, even in foreign countries have become the focus of the asset market. However, the misrepresentation in the new three-edition market occurs from time to time, in which the securities professional service organizations play an important role. The illegal behavior of the securities agency has greatly harmed the legitimate interests of investors and resulted in a sharp decline in investment enthusiasm. Through the laws and regulations of the new third board market, it is not difficult to find that the civil liability of the securities professional intermediary institutions, the relevant legislation has not made detailed provisions, invisibly has increased the pressure on judges to adjudicate cases. Moreover, in practice, once the infringement of securities professional intermediary institutions occurs, investors are often unable to protect their legitimate rights and interests because of their weak position, and can only "admit their own misfortune". Violations of the law can not be severely punished, so that the securities professional intermediary organizations intensified. Therefore, in the face of this problem, we need to clarify its civil liability from the legislation, so as to strengthen the operability of the judge to try the civil disputes of securities professional intermediary, and then better regulate the behavior of the intermediary. In addition, also with the state-initiated "capital market internationalization" strategy coincided. Based on the development of the new third board market in China in recent years, this paper analyzes the illegal events of the securities professional intermediary organizations in the new third board market, and finds out the deficiency of the current legal mechanism of the new third board market. At the same time, drawing on the experience and lessons of the over-the-counter market in the developed countries for many years, it constructs a logical framework system for the civil liability of the securities professional intermediary. This paper takes the civil liability incurred by securities intermediary service institutions as the object of study on the losses incurred by investors caused by illegal acts. Firstly, it introduces the development of the new third board market in recent years. And through the different division of labor of securities professional intermediary organization in the enterprise listing, we can further understand the work content of securities professional intermediary organization. Secondly, through the comparative analysis of the civil nature of the infringement of securities professional intermediary organizations in the theoretical circle, the civil liability of the securities professional intermediary institutions is deeply analyzed, and combined with the basic situation of the operation of the new three boards market in recent years, It is more appropriate to adopt the theory of tort liability. Then, from the perspective of substantive law (Substantive Law), the paper discusses the four "constitutive elements" (subjective fault, injurious act, damage fact and causality) of the tort liability of securities professional intermediary organization, and puts forward, at the same time, the four "constitutive requirements" (subjective fault, injurious act, damage fact and causality). The principle of "presumption of fault" should be applied to the intermediary institution. Finally, this paper discusses some difficulties that investors are facing in civil litigation, and puts forward some reasonable suggestions on the disputes encountered in the new third board market. Including drawing lessons from the relevant experience of "class-action" in the over-the-counter trading market in the United States, and cancelling the provisions of "Litigation Pre-Proceedings" in securities civil litigation. Construct the intermediary organization practice liability insurance "and the diversified dispute settlement way".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京外國語大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 林臻;充分發(fā)揮我國三板市場的功能與作用[J];福州黨校學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

2 李文增;;為何要在天津建立全國性的證券第三板市場[J];天津政協(xié)公報(bào);2008年06期

3 何以;;論我國三板市場的功能定位與基本格局[J];證券法苑;2010年02期

4 劉晶;;論我國三板市場信息披露制度的完善[J];中國證券期貨;2013年02期

5 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 廣州證券 王燕芬;分紅是新三板市場強(qiáng)心劑[N];中國證券報(bào);2014年

2 本報(bào)記者 家路美;三板市場擴(kuò)容年底提速[N];證券日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

3 繆 舢;政策支持憧憬三板市場[N];中國企業(yè)報(bào);2004年

4 李曙光;應(yīng)給三板市場定好位[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

5 屠駿;三板市場：“金礦”還是“垃圾桶”？[N];國際金融報(bào);2002年

6 蔣婭婭;三板市場：漸行漸長的煩惱[N];解放日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

7 ;什么是三板市場[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

8 王冀;三板市場助力中小高科技企業(yè)發(fā)展[N];中國建材報(bào);2006年

9 王紅玲;三板市場也要搞清欠[N];中國證券報(bào);2006年

10 早報(bào)記者 柏蓓;上海應(yīng)建全國性三板市場[N];東方早報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 馬曉青;中國三板市場交易機(jī)制研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳弘;我國三板市場法律制度問題研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

2 劉晨曦;新三板市場法律問題研究[D];河北大學(xué);2015年

3 唐小偉;我國新三板市場運(yùn)行功能的研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2015年

4 張孟鈺;我國新三板市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防控模式研究[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

5 孫珊;OTCBB市場對(duì)我國新三板機(jī)制設(shè)計(jì)的啟示[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

6 陸瑩潔;新三板市場對(duì)中小企業(yè)融資及其他隱性推動(dòng)作用研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

7 張瑞平;新三板市場企業(yè)融資影響因素分析[D];河南大學(xué);2015年

8 郭昱含;基于新三板市場的中小企業(yè)股權(quán)融資問題研究[D];天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

9 成柏屹;X證券新三板市場營銷策略研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2015年

10 楊佩欣;擴(kuò)容后新三板市場法律問題研究[D];蘭州商學(xué)院;2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2155254