证券类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网 2021-09-21

目录
Contents

1. 闽发证券有限责任公司与北京辰达科技投资有限公司、上海元盛投资管理有限公司、上海全盛投资发展有限公司、深圳市天纪和源实业发展有限公司合并破产清算案
Minfa Securities Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Chenda Science and Technology Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yuansheng Investment Management Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yuansheng Investment Development Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tianjiheyuan Industrial Development Co., Ltd (consolidated bankruptcy liquidation)

2. 陈伟诉广东省机场管理集团公司、广州白云国际机场股份有限公司、上海证券交易所侵权纠纷案
Chen Wei v. Guangdong Airport Management Corporation, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Company Limited and Shanghai Stock Exchange (A tort case)

3. 2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之五：甲证券公司与乙保理公司、丙公司、丁公司等票据追索权纠纷上诉案——当事人的约定不能对抗电子商业汇票系统中的记载
No. 5 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: The Agreement between Parties cannot be Relied on to Defend against the Record in the Electronic Commercial Draft System — An appellant case of Security Company A v. Factoring Company B, Company C and Company D on Disputes over Right of Recourse

一、闽发证券有限责任公司与北京辰达科技投资有限公司、上海元盛投资管理有限公司、上海全盛投资发展有限公司、深圳市天纪和源实业发展有限公司合并破产清算案

Minfa Securities Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Chenda Science and Technology Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yuansheng Investment Management Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yuansheng Investment Development Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tianjiheyuan Industrial Development Co., Ltd (consolidated bankruptcy liquidation)

【裁判要旨】

关联公司资产混同、管理混同、经营混同以致无法个别清算的，可将数个关联公司作为一个企业整体合并清算。人民法院对清算工作的职责定位为监督和指导，监督是全面的监督，指导是宏观的指导，不介入具体清算事务以保持中立裁判地位。从破产衍生诉讼中破产企业方实际缺位、管理人与诉讼对方不对称掌握证据和事实的实际情况出发，不简单适用当事人主义审判方式，而是适时适度强化职权主义审判方式的应用。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where it is impossible to liquidate related companies separately due to mingle in assets, management and business operation, such companies may be liquidated together as a whole. The responsibilities of the people's courts in respect of the liquidation are to conduct comprehensive supervision and provide macro guidance but shall not get involved in specific liquidation matters, so to stay impartial.In view of the actual situation in the bankrupt derivative litigation, i.e., in effect absence of the insolvent enterprise, unbalanced access to information on evidence and facts by the administrator and other participating parties, the people's court shall make handle the procedures based upon the authoritative function [of the court] in proper time and with appropriate extent, but not simply leave them for litigants' argument.Full-text is omitted.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》 2013年第11期(总第205期)

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 11, 2013

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.1798737

[CLI Code] CLI.C.1798737(EN)

二、陈伟诉广东省机场管理集团公司、广州白云国际机场股份有限公司、上海证券交易所侵权纠纷案

Chen Wei v. Guangdong Airport Management Corporation, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Company Limited and Shanghai Stock Exchange (A tort case)

【裁判要旨】

权证属证券衍生品种，发布权证信息的提示性公告的权证信息披露与证券法规定的涉及上市公司财务状况、股权结构以及公司经营管理人员变化等公司内部重大事项的信息披露不同，应由发行人和相关投资者承担相关信息披露义务，而不是由权证标的证券上市公司承担。

行为人应在充分了解权证交易规则和各种风险的基础上进行高风险的权证交易。在发行人尽到了权证信息公告的披露义务、证券交易机构尽到了监管义务的前提下，行为人一旦根据自主决定进行权证买卖交易，在享有权证交易可能带来的收益的同时，也应承担可能出现的风险。因为疏忽大意没有发现重要信息，或者没有充分了解权证的有关规则，在进行交易行为时产生亏损的，相应后果应自行承担。

[Judgment Abstract]

A warrant is a type of derivative securities. Alert on a warrant that discloses information regarding the warrant shall be made by issuers and relevant investor but not by the listed company as the asset mark of such warrant. It is different from disclosure of information regarding material internal matters of a listed company such as the financial status, equity structure and change of business management personnel.

The actor should have sufficient understanding of warrant trading rules and various risks before engaging in the high-risk warrant trading. In the premises that the issuer fulfilled its information disclosure obligation regarding the warrant and the stock exchange fulfilled its oversight obligation, an actor shall be responsible for all benefit or loss from the warrant trading if he decided to conduct warrant trading at his own discretion. If any loss was occurred in the warrant trading due to his negligently ignoring any important information or failure to fully understand the relevant warrant rules, the actor should be responsible for the relevant consequences himself.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》 2008年第12期(总第146期)

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 12, 2008

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.147784

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 147784(EN)

三、2018年度上海法院金融商事审判十大案例之五：甲证券公司与乙保理公司、丙公司、丁公司等票据追索权纠纷上诉案

——当事人的约定不能对抗电子商业汇票系统中的记载

No. 5 of Ten Noteworthy Financial Cases in Shanghai Courts of 2018: The Agreement between Parties cannot be Relied on to Defend against the Record in the Electronic Commercial Draft System

— An appellant case of Security Company A v. Factoring Company B, Company C and Company D on Disputes over Right of Recourse

【裁判摘要】

各方当事人签订协议，约定电子商业汇票系统中载明的质权人作为实际质权人的代理人在电子商业汇票系统中持有票据。根据票据法的规定，此时应认定质权人为电子商业汇票系统所载明的人，而不是当事人自行约定、未在电子商业汇票系统中载明的人。当事人的约定不能突破票据的文义性特征。

[Judgment Abstract]

The parties at issue signed an agreement stipulating that the pledgee registered in the Electronic Commercial Draft (“ECD”) system shall hold relevant ECD as the agent of the actual pledgee. Pursuant to the Law of Negotiable Instruments, the pledgee recognized by law shall the one registered in the ECD system instead of the actual pledgee as agreed by the parties. The agreement between parties are not allowed to override the literalness of negotiable instruments.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.83077859

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 83077859(EN)

责任编辑：李泽鹏

稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）

审核人员：张文硕

更多精彩，请点击菜单栏“法宝盘点-法宝原创-双语新闻”：

▼往期精彩回顾▼