論證券交易法第20條之1之功過得失

A Critique Study on the Article 20-1 of the Securities Exchange Act

系爭公司之證券「持有人」，因欠缺交易因果關係，不得為證券交易法第20條之1的請求權主體。有關持有人之規定，應儘速刪除。其次，證券交易法第20條之1，基本上為流通市場之規範，不可貿然移植第32條初級市場之規範，有關發行人、董事長與總經理無過失責任之規定，應予刪除，以免造成濫訴風潮。再者，該條第5項會造成過失詐欺之謬誤且比例損害賠償責任並無學理基礎，均應儘早刪除。

In private party litigation under Article 20-1, the plaintiff generally must prove that he or she reasonably relied upon the defendants fraudulent financial reports. The holder of a security cannot bring the suit because he or she has not actually bought or sold a security. In addition, Article 20-1 is a provision under secondary market. There is no asymmetric information between the buyer and the seller in the secondary market. Hence, the imposition of a strict liability under Article 20-1 for the issuer, chairman, and C.E.O. is not reasonable. The author argues that negligence standard may not be the appropriate standard under Article 20-1. Lowering the standard from scienter to negligence, not only might increase the number of lawsuits filed, but also cause the standard toward a strict liability. The proportion liability is lack of any legal theory to support. To sum up, the Article 20-1 should be reformed.