[1] 杭州市中级人民法院(2020)浙01民初1691号一审民事判决书。
[2] 浙江省高级人民法院(2021)浙民终389号二审民事判决书。
[3] 上海市高级人民法院(2020)沪民终666号二审民事判决书。
[4] 广州市中级人民法院(2020)粤01民初2171号一审民事判决书。
[5] 尽管比例连带责任的适用主体已经扩展到了发行人的董事(包括独立董事)、监事以及高级管理人员, 考虑到篇幅问题, 本文主要围绕中介机构适用比例连带责任的问题展开论证。一般认为, 在发行人承担全部赔偿责任的情况下, 发行人的实际控制人、董监高可能承担连带责任。因此, 如果本文中出现发行人承担连带责任的表述仅为行文方便不代表作者认为, 仅发行人需要承担责任。
[6] 实务界代表性文章包括: 傅远泓: 《论“部分连带”责任效果的类型化及适用》, 载《民商法论丛》2020年第3期; 邹志强、尹一航: 《中介机构生死劫: 聚焦ST中安“比例连带责任”第一案》, 链接: https: //mp.weixin.qq.com/s/BScu27aTXgWLSUZHINc-ZQ; 刘东、邓晓明: 《证券虚假陈述中介机构责任新格局——评上海高院中安科“比例连带责任”第一案》, 链接: https: //mp.weixin.qq.com/s/rGgm7SiSc03d5UMPaG72bA; 张会会、游冕: 《“中安科案”评析: 比例连带责任和前置程序的新理解》, 链接: https: //mp.weixin.qq.com/s/zCwRs1OHsO96CXO7nfq61g; 夏东霞、杨婷、王琦: 《中介机构证券虚假陈述民事责任专题探讨(二)——如何理解“连带责任”》, 链接: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qQHr7JmdWbL7libFoLz5WQ.
[7] 理论界的代表性文章包括: 陈洁: 《证券虚假陈述中审验机构连带责任的厘清与修正》, 载《中国法学》2021年第6期; 周淳: 《证券发行虚假陈述: 中介机构过错责任认定与反思》, 载《证券市场导报》2021年7月号; 缪因知: 《证券虚假陈述赔偿中审计人责任构成要件与责任限缩》, 载《财经法学》2021年第2期; 邢会强: 《证券律师注意义务之边界》, 载《商业经济与管理》2021年第9期。
[8] 张维迎、邓峰: 《国家的刑法与社会的民法——礼法分野的法律经济学解释》, 载《中外法学》2020年第6期, 第1408页。
[9] 最高人民法院(2019)最高法民申2374号民事裁定书, 上海市高级人民法院(2019)沪民终35号、(2019)沪民终42号、(2019)沪民终43号二审民事判决书。
[10] 四川省高级人民法院(2020)川民终741号、(2020)川民终1176号二审民事判决书。
[11] 云南省高级人民法院(2020)云民终281号、(2020)云民终223号二审民事判决书。
[12] 四川省成都市中级人民法院(2019)川01民初545号一审民事判决书、(2020)川民终293号二审民事判决书。
[13] 《证券法》(2019修订)第一百六十三条规定, “证券服务机构为证券的发行、上市、交易等证券业务活动制作、出具审计报告及其他鉴证报告、资产评估报告、财务顾问报告、资信评级报告或者法律意见书等文件, 应当勤勉尽责, 对所依据的文件资料内容的真实性、准确性、完整性进行核查和验证。其制作、出具的文件有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏, 给他人造成损失的, 应当与委托人承担连带赔偿责任, 但是能够证明自己没有过错的除外。”
值得注意的是, 该条的前身为《证券法》(1998)第一百六十一条, “为证券的发行、上市或者证券交易活动出具审计报告、资产评估报告或者法律意见书等文件的专业机构和人员, 必须按照执业规则规定的工作程序出具报告, 对其所出具报告内容的真实性、准确性和完整性进行核查和验证, 并就其负有责任的部分承担连带责任。”
2005年《证券法》修改后该条被修改为“第一百七十三条证券服务机构为证券的发行、上市、交易等证券业务活动制作、出具审计报告、资产评估报告、财务顾问报告、资信评级报告或者法律意见书等文件, 应当勤勉尽责, 对所依据的文件资料内容的真实性、准确性、完整性进行核查和验证。其制作、出具的文件有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏, 给他人造成损失的, 应当与发行人、上市公司承担连带赔偿责任, 但是能够证明自己没有过错的除外。”
自2005年至2019年历经三次修订, 该条的表述除部分文字变化外, 连带责任的表述并无实质变化。
[14] 请见“《最高人民法院工作报告》解读系列全媒体直播访谈第二场”, 链接: http: //www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-289881.html.
[15] 黄薇主编: 《中华人民共和国民法典总则编释义》, 法律出版社2020年版, 第466-468页; 张凤翔: 《连带责任的司法实践》, 上海人民出版社2006年版, 第47-50页。
[16] 尤扬、赵之涵: 《证券实务参取: 按比例连带责任如何内部追偿? — 兼评中安科证券虚假陈述案》, 链接: https: //mp.weixin.qq.com/s/TzHUF5GoeaaPSea-OVLFHg; 袁德喻、徐凌婕: 《证券虚假陈述纠纷中比例连带责任应如何执行和追偿? ——以五洋债、康美药业案为例》, 链接: https: //mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YvqofnALu3A9p91It6BEpg.
[17] 按份责任与连带责任的关系, 请见张凤翔: 《连带责任的司法实践》, 上海人民出版社2006年版, 第53-56页。
[18] 邱聪智、姚志明: 《新订民法债编通则(下)》(新订二版), 承法数位文化有限公司2013年版, 第253-254页; 张凤翔: 《连带责任的司法实践》, 上海人民出版社2006年版, 第57-60页。
[19] 陈洁: 《证券虚假陈述中审验机构连带责任的厘清与修正》, 载《中国法学》2021年第6期, 第212-215页; 缪因知: 《祛魅“从重从严”: 厘定中介机构的比例责任需要精细化操作》, 载《经济观察报》2021年6月14日第24版, 第2-3页。
[20] 曾世雄、詹森林: 《损害赔偿法原理》(第三版), 新学林2016年1月版, 第15-18页。
[21] 王利明: 《法律解释学导论: 以民法为视角》, 法律出版社2017年版, 第389-390页。
[22] 王利明: 《法律解释学导论: 以民法为视角》, 法律出版社2017年版, 第392页。
[23] 《审计师侵权若干规定》第五条规定, “注册会计师在审计业务活动中存在下列情形之一, 出具不实报告并给利害关系人造成损失的, 应当认定会计师事务所与被审计单位承担连带赔偿责任:
(一)与被审计单位恶意串通;
(二)明知被审计单位对重要事项的财务会计处理与国家有关规定相抵触, 而不予指明;
(三)明知被审计单位的财务会计处理会直接损害利害关系人的利益, 而予以隐瞒或者作不实报告;
(四)明知被审计单位的财务会计处理会导致利害关系人产生重大误解, 而不予指明;
(五)明知被审计单位的会计报表的重要事项有不实的内容, 而不予指明;
(六)被审计单位示意其作不实报告, 而不予拒绝。
对被审计单位有前款第(二)至(五)项所列行为, 注册会计师按照执业准则、规则应当知道的, 人民法院应认定其明知。”
《审计师侵权若干规定》第六条规定, “会计师事务所在审计业务活动中因过失出具不实报告, 并给利害关系人造成损失的, 人民法院应当根据其过失大小确定其赔偿责任。
注册会计师在审计过程中未保持必要的职业谨慎, 存在下列情形之一, 并导致报告不实的, 人民法院应当认定会计师事务所存在过失:
(一)违反注册会计师法第二十条第(二)、(三)项的规定;
(二)负责审计的注册会计师以低于行业一般成员应具备的专业水准执业;
(三)制定的审计计划存在明显疏漏;
(四)未依据执业准则、规则执行必要的审计程序;
(五)在发现可能存在错误和舞弊的迹象时, 未能追加必要的审计程序予以证实或者排除;
(六)未能合理地运用执业准则和规则所要求的重要性原则;
(七)未根据审计的要求采用必要的调查方法获取充分的审计证据;
(八)明知对总体结论有重大影响的特定审计对象缺少判断能力, 未能寻求专家意见而直接形成审计结论;
(九)错误判断和评价审计证据;
(十)其他违反执业准则、规则确定的工作程序的行为。”
《审计师侵权若干规定》第十条规定, “人民法院根据本规定第六条确定会计师事务所承担与其过失程度相应的赔偿责任时, 应按照下列情形处理:
(一)应先由被审计单位赔偿利害关系人的损失。被审计单位的出资人虚假出资、不实出资或者抽逃出资, 事后未补足, 且依法强制执行被审计单位财产后仍不足以赔偿损失的, 出资人应在虚假出资、不实出资或者抽逃出资数额范围内向利害关系人承担补充赔偿责任。
(二)对被审计单位、出资人的财产依法强制执行后仍不足以赔偿损失的, 由会计师事务所在其不实审计金额范围内承担相应的赔偿责任。
(三)会计师事务所对一个或者多个利害关系人承担的赔偿责任应以不实审计金额为限。”
[24] 王闯、周伦军: 《<关于审理涉及会计师事务所在审计业务活动中民事侵权赔偿案件的若干规定>的理解与适用》,载《人民司法》2007年第17期, 第31-32页。
[25] 《债券纪要》第31条规定, “债券服务机构的过错认定。信息披露文件中关于发行人偿付能力的相关内容存在虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏, 足以影响投资人对发行人偿付能力的判断的, 会计师事务所、律师事务所、信用评级机构、资产评估机构等债券服务机构不能证明其已经按照法律、行政法规、部门规章、行业执业规范和职业道德等规定的勤勉义务谨慎执业的, 人民法院应当认定其存在过错。
会计师事务所、律师事务所、信用评级机构、资产评估机构等债券服务机构的注意义务和应负责任范围, 限于各自的工作范围和专业领域, 其制作、出具的文件有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏, 应当按照证券法及相关司法解释的规定, 考量其是否尽到勤勉尽责义务, 区分故意、过失等不同情况, 分别确定其应当承担的法律责任。”
[26] 曹明哲: 《论债券虚假陈述纠纷中的中介机构责任》, 载《中国注册会计师》2021年第4期, 第105页。
[27] “证监会: 将配合相关部门修改虚假陈述的司法解释”, 链接: https: //baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1702895799004904869&wfr=spider&for=pc.
[28] 翁晓健: 《证券市场虚假陈述民事责任研究——美国证券法经验的反思与借鉴》, 上海社会科学院出版社2011年版, 第26页; 韩龙: 《美国1934年证券交易法(中英对照版)序》, 法律出版社2006年版, 第71页。
[29] Securities Act of 1933, Section 11 (a): “Persons possessing cause of action; persons liable — In case any part of the registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission) may, either at law or in equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue—(1)every person who signed the registration statement; (2)every person who was a director of (or person performing similar functions) or partner in the issuer at the time of the filing of the part of the registration statement with respect to which his liability is asserted; (3)every person who, with his consent, is named in the registration statement as being or about to become a director, person performing similar functions, or partner; (4)every accountant, engineer, or appraiser, or any person whose profession gives authority to a statement made by him, who has with his consent been named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation which is used in connection with the registration statement, with respect to the statement in such registration statement, report, or valuation, which purports to have been prepared or certified by him; (5)every underwriter with respect to such security.”
Securities Act of 1933, Section 11 (f): “Joint and several liability; liability of outside director — (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), all or any one or more of the persons specified in subsection (a) shall be jointly and severally liable, and every person who becomes liable to make any payment under this section may recover contribution as in cases of contract from any person who, if sued separately, would have been liable to make the same payment, unless the person who has become liable was, and the other was not, guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation…”
[30] 周淳: 《证券发行虚假陈述: 中介机构过错责任认定与反思》, 载《证券市场导报》2021年7月号, 第71页。
[31] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Report of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, to Accompany S.240 Together with Additional Views, U.S. Government Printing Office. “Under joint and several liability, each defendant is liable for all of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Thus, a defendant found responsible for only 1% of the harm could be required to pay 100% of the damages.”
[32] Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 Employment of Manipulative & Deceptive Devices. “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, a. To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, b. To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or c. To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
[33] Committee of Conference Report, H.R. Rep. No.104-369, at 105 (1995), reprinted in Litigating & Bespeaking Caution Under the New Securities Law, 924 PLI/Corp 7, 105 (1996). at 105 (quoting testimony of Hon. Richard Breeden, former SEC Chairman). “Parties who are central to perpetrating a fraud often pay little, if anything. At the same time, those whose involvement might be only peripheral and lacked any deliberate and knowing participation in the fraud often pay the most in damages.”
[34] Testimony of Former SEC Comm’r J. Carter Beese, Jr., Chairman of the Capital Markets Regulatory Reform Project Ctr. for Strategic and Int’l Stud., Before the Sec. Subcomm. of the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Mar. 2, 1995. Cited in Marc I. Steinberg & Christopher D. Olive, Contribution and Proportionate Liability under the Federal Securities Laws in Multidefendant Securities Litigation after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 50 SMU L. REV. 344 (1997).“This principle has a legitimate public policy purpose, but, in practice, it encourages plaintiffs to name as many deep-pocket defendants as possible, even though some of these defendants may bear very little responsibility for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff.”
[35] Committee of Conference Report, H.R. Rep. No.104-369, at 37 (1995).“The current system of joint and several liability creates coercive pressure for entirely innocent parties to settle meritless claims rather than risk exposing themselves to liability for a grossly disproportionate share of the damages in the case.”Marc I. Steinberg & Christopher D. Olive, Contribution and Proportionate Liability under the Federal Securities Laws in Multidefendant Securities Litigation after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 50 SMU L. REV. 341 (1997).
[36] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 201(a): AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. —Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as added by this Act) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: “(2) LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.—(A) JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.—Any covered person against whom a final judgment is entered in a private action shall be liable for damages jointly and severally only if the trier of fact specifically determines that such covered person knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws. (B) PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.—(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (1), a covered person against whom a final judgment is entered in a private action shall be liable solely for the portion of the judgment that corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of that covered person, as determined under paragraph (3).”
[37] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 201(g)(3): “DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—In any private action, the court shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogatories, or if there is no jury, shall make findings, with respect to each covered person and each of the other persons claimed by any of the parties to have caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff, including persons who have entered into settlements with the plaintiff or plaintiffs, concerning—(i) whether such person violated the securities laws; (ii) the percentage of responsibility of such person, measured as a percentage of the total fault of all persons who caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff; and (iii) whether such person knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws.”
[38] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 201(g)(3)(C): “FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In determining the percentage of responsibility under this paragraph, the trier of fact shall consider—(i) the nature of the conduct of each covered person found to have caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff or plaintiffs; and (ii) the nature and extent of the causal relationship between the conduct of each such person and the damages incurred by the plaintiff or plaintiffs.”
[39] Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Int'l, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 412 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
[40] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 201(g)(8): “CONTRIBUTION.—A covered person who becomes jointly and severally liable for damages in any private action may recover contribution from any other person who, if joined in the original action, would have been liable for the same damages. A claim for contribution shall be determined based on the percentage of responsibility of the claimant and of each person against whom a claim for contribution is made.”
[41] Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U.S. 286 (1993).
[42] Mary Ellen P. Dooley, An Implied Right of Contribution Under Rule 10b-5: An Essential Element of Attaining the Goals of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 61 Fordham L. Rev. S185 (1993). P.196. See, e.g., Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 639-40 (1981) (no implied right of contribution under Sherman and Clayton Acts which provide for express remedies but not for contribution); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, 451 U.S. 77, 91-94 & n.24 (1981).
[43] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 201(g)(4): “(4) UNCOLLECTIBLE SHARE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(B), upon motion made not later than 6 months after a final judgment is entered in any private action, the court determines that all or part of the share of the judgment of the covered person is not collectible against that covered person, and is also not collectible against a covered person described in paragraph (2)(A), each covered person described in paragraph (2)(B) shall be liable for the uncollectible share as follows: (i) PERCENTAGE OF NET WORTH.—Each covered person shall be jointly and severally liable for the uncollectible share if the plaintiff establishes that— (I) the plaintiff is an individual whose recoverable damages under the final judgment are equal to more than 10 percent of the net worth of the plaintiff; and (II) the net worth of the plaintiff is equal to less than $200,000. (ii) OTHER PLAINTIFFS.—With respect to any plaintiff not described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause(i), each covered person shall be liable for the uncollectible share in proportion to the percentage of responsibility of that covered person, except that the total liability of a covered person under this clause may not exceed 50 percent of the proportionate share of that covered person, as determined under paragraph(3)(B). ”
[44] Denis T. Rice, A Practitioner’s View of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, University of San Francisco Law Review 31, no. 2 (1997). P.283-344.
[45] In re Homestore.com, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46535 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2011). “As the PSLRA[笔者注: 《1995年私人证券诉讼改革法》] specifically states that Defendant is entitled to an offset of the amount paid to the plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendant's arguments here are more persuasive and the settlement offsets here should be applied based on the amount paid by the settling defendants to the Class as a whole.”
[46] Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Sec. 78u-4(f)(7)(B):“(B) Reduction. If a covered person enters into a settlement with the plaintiff prior to final verdict or judgment, the verdict or judgment shall be reduced by the greater of—(i) an amount that corresponds to the percentage of responsibility of that covered person; or (ii) the amount paid to the plaintiff by that covered person.”
[47] 1988年《证交法》第32条规定: “前条之公开说明书, 其应记载之主要内容有虚伪或隐匿之情事者, 左(下)列各款之人, 对于善意之相对人, 因而所受之损害, 应就其所应负责部分与公司负连带赔偿责任……四、会计师、律师、工程师或其他专门职业或技术人员, 曾在公开说明书上签章, 以证实其所载内容之全部或一部, 或陈述意见者。”
[48] 台湾高等法院 96 年金上字第 1 号民事判决。
[49] 曾宛如: 《证券交易法原理》, 元照出版社2012年第6版, 第230页。
[50] 林国全: 《财报不实之民事责任》, 载《月旦民商法杂志》第48期, 第19页。
[51] 王志诚: 《企业财务报告编制之法律风险及法律责任》, 载《月旦民商法杂志》第59期, 第102页。
[52] 台湾高等法院101年度金上字第6号民事判决。
[53] 台湾高等法院105年度金上更(二)字第1号民事判决。
[54] 刘连煜: 《新证券交易法实例研习》, 元照出版社2014年, 第358页。
[55] 林国全: 《财报不实之民事责任》, 载《月旦民商法杂志》第48期, 第49页。
[56] 刘连煜: 《财报不实案件中之比例赔偿责任与全部赔偿责任》, 载《月旦法学教室》第134期, 第120页。
[57] 刘连煜: 《财报不实案件中之比例赔偿责任与全部赔偿责任》, 载《月旦法学教室》第134期, 第121页。
[58] 刘连煜: 《财报不实案件中之比例赔偿责任与全部赔偿责任》, 载《月旦法学教室》第134期, 第120页。
[59] 林国全: 《财报不实之民事责任》, 载《月旦民商法杂志》第48期, 第50-51页。
[60] 陈文智: 《该让会计师享用比例责任制了吗? 》, 载《法学新论》第1 期, 第49、61-65页。
[61] 赖英照: 《遵守文义或司法造法: 会计师事务所财报签证的赔偿责任》, 载《东吴法律学报》31卷第3期, 第18页。
[62] 刘连煜: 《财报不实案中有关证券持有人的举证、过失比例责任及会计师事务所之连带责任》, 载《法令月刊》64卷第12期, 第112页。
[63] 台湾高等法院104年度金上字第8号民事判决。
[64] 台湾高等法院106年度金上字第6号民事判决。
[65] 台湾高等法院106年度金上更(一)字第1号民事判决。
[66] 台湾高等法院101年度金上更(一)字第1号民事判决。
[67] 台湾高等法院104年度金上字第14号民事判决。
[68] 台湾高等法院101年度金上字第7号民事判决。
[69] 新竹地方法院100年度重诉字第131号民事判决。
[70] 赖英照: 《遵守文义或司法造法: 会计师事务所财报签证的赔偿责任》, 载《东吴法律学报》31卷第3期, 第19页。
[71] 陈文智: 《该让会计师享用比例责任制了吗? 》, 载《法学新论》第1期, 第49、77页。
法律咨询电话 
