美國對於SPAC上市及De-SPAC併購交易的監管與發展──兼論SPAC制度在台灣之可行性

The Supervision of SPAC IPO and De-SPAC and Its Development in the United States─The Feasibility of the SPAC Mechanism in Taiwan

本文分成四部分，第一部分主要在介紹現今美國SPAC市場的各種爭議，主要包括：發起人有利益衝突卻放任自我交易、金融機構有內線消息又有機會賺取額外費用、SPAC可以使用財務預測，導致誇大的揭露內容氾濫。本文第二部分介紹美國SEC對於SPAC的看法以及其於2022年提出的SPAC新規則，新規則著重於加強揭露義務、使De-SPAC的監管向一般傳統上市看齊、嚴格把關標的公司所揭露的財務預測等。第三部分在介紹業界、承銷商、律師事務所、學者對於新規則的意見，其中最受批評的就是SEC擴張「法定承銷商」的規定，使SPAC上市時的承銷商及其他後續參與De-SPAC程序的金融機構都將被視為De-SPAC程序的承銷商，並因此就標的公司相關的揭露內容負擔證券法不實陳述的責任；多數批評意見認為此一規則已經超越SEC的行政權限，應屬於立法權限。最後第四部分進一步討論我國資本市場引入SPAC制度的可能性，首先從金管會的三點疑慮出發，探討各項疑慮是否可以參考現有的法律或是外國立法例來解決。

This article is composed of four parts. The first part introduces various disputes in the SPAC market in the United States, which include: potential conflict of interest between sponsors and investors as well as sponsor’s self-dealings; financial institutions have access to insider information and are able to makeAprofit from hidden fees; and SPACs’ use of financial projections will lead to fraud and misleading disclosure. The second part introduces the SEC’s views on SPACs and the new rules it proposed in 2022. The new rules are focused on strengthening disclosure obligations, aligning the supervision of De-SPACs with traditional IPOs, and regulating target companies’ financial projections. The third part introduces comments and opinions of the industry players, underwriters, law firms and scholars in connection with the new rules. The one being criticized the most is clarification of the “statutory underwriter” definition, that is, underwriters who participated the SPAC’s IPO and other subsequent participants in the following De-SPAC process will be deemed as underwriters of such De-SPAC transaction, and thus will be liable for any untrue or misleading statements made in the disclosure documents. Most critics believe that this rule has gone beyond the SEC’s administrative power and should belong to the legislators. Lastly, the fourth part discusses the possibility of introducing the SPAC mechanism into Taiwan’s capital market. This article addresses three concerns raised by Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission, and discusses if the existing legal regime and/or foreign regulations can help to solve the problems.