美國證券詐欺訴訟上之確定性－－Dodd-Frank 法案下既判力之分析

Finality in U.S. Securities Fraud Litigation －An Analysis of Res Judicata under the Dodd-Frank Act

本文主旨在探討莫里森判決及其對證券詐欺訴訟下既判力原則的影響。本文首先介紹莫里森判決的背景，接著探討莫里森判決的既判力，並聚焦在普通法原則下判例對於證券交易訴訟的適用性；其次藉由美國國內證券詐欺訴訟歷史發展之說明，本文闡述莫里森判決對證券詐欺訴訟的影響，並分析討論美國證券交易委員會如何運用方法及加強其能力在莫里森判決後的證券詐欺訴訟，然後提供莫里森判決後的學術評論分析。本文認為，美國法院在證券詐欺案件的域外管轄權問題早已建立起一套以行為檢驗標準和效果檢驗標準的判例體系，然因全球貿易和跨國整合促使經濟情勢已經澈底地轉變。就此，美國聯邦最高法院透過莫里森判決以交易檢驗標準做為新的判斷標準。但聯邦政府將這些發展納入考量後，為了達成行政目的進而推翻莫里森判決，因而對陶德－法蘭克法案做出修正，並明顯地透過證券交易法的修法來恢復國會立法的原意。然可能會因為違反了當前的需求和未來可能的發展，從而限縮司法的管轄權。最後本文在結論部分，提出未來證券詐欺訴訟相關判決的可能發展。

This article examines the Morrison decision and its impact on the principle of res judicata in securities fraud litigation. The discussion first provides background into the Morrison decision perse, after which it explores res judicata with an emphasis on the applicability of this common-law principle to litigation in the area of securities trading. The analysis reveals that the economic landscape had changed so thoroughly in terms of global trade and transnational integration since the advent of the conduct test and effects test in jurisdictional decisions to address the Securities Exchange Act that profound adjustments were indeed in order. Morrison appears to establish the beginning of further adjustments to come. Given these observations, while the amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act to reverse Morrison specifically for the goal of enforcement by federal agencies evidently restored the original intent of the Congress in legislating the Securities Exchange Act, it may have the effect of rigidifying judicial procedure in a way that is contrary to current needs and likely future developments. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for future securities adjudication.