一场市值缩水330亿美元的旷世跨洋大鏖战
战争并未结束，前方炮火依然猛烈
阿里和华尔街"诉棍"再次狭路相逢
新的战役即将开打
东方"功守道"对决华尔街"菜刀”
最终，将鹿死谁手？
继民财经汇独家解读：
美国为何要重审阿里巴巴IPO 诉讼案？
https://v.qq.com/txp/iframe/player.html?vid=l01468m12ib&width=500&height=375&auto=0
上个月，马云刚在《功守道》中打败各路武林高手；熟料，这个月，华尔街“诉棍”们拎着“菜刀”又杀回来了......
阿里在IPO 之后不久就遭遇美国股东集体诉讼，此案件曾经引发广泛的关注。该案件在2016年6月被一审法院驳回， 原告不服，继续上诉。
而刚刚， 美国上诉法院做出裁决， 要求重新审理此案。接下来，我们一起学习和分析一下上诉庭的裁决过程：
在法院的裁决书中（见下图），上诉庭的法官首先指出，地区法院驳回原告对被告的指控是错误的。 The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim for failure to plead facts adequately supporting the first two elements, and dismissed the Section 20(a) claim for failure to allege an underlying violation of the securities laws. This was error.
上诉庭法官认为，原告的诉状对每个被告，都充分指控其行为符合对重大信心进行故意的误导或者隐瞒。诉状指出, 阿里巴巴在IPO时候隐藏了重大事实，
即：2014年7月16日，也就是在阿里IPO的两个月之前, 来自“权利强大的”（powerfull)中国国家工商行政管理局(“工商总局”)的高级官员召集阿里巴巴参加一个行政指导会议。尽管按照中国相关法律，工商总局行政指导程序”是对公众开放的， 但“这次会议是在秘密”,以避免泄露任何可能影响阿里IPO的负面信息的情况下进行的。”
会上,工商总局官员警告说,除非阿里巴巴能消除在其网站平台销售假冒产品的现象， 否则阿里将遭受每天零售总值的1%的罚款；诉状指出这个被阿里在招股书中所隐瞒的信息，对投资者而言属于高度重要的( highly material)；因为这个来自工商总局的威胁( threat) ，“要求阿里巴巴在放弃一个重要营收来源或者可能面临巨额罚金这两者之间进行选择，”而选哪一个都可能损及阿里巴巴业绩或IPO是否能够成功。”上诉法院指出：这一信息对投资者的重要性也在市场后续反应中得到证实，在市场得知该信息后，阿里巴巴的股票下跌13%,在两天内大约330亿美元市值缩水。阿里巴巴的IPO融资金额高达250亿美元,是历史上最大的IPO 交易。如果在IPO当时就披露这个信息， 那么可能会有数十亿美元的负面效应。As to each defendant, the complaint adequately alleges complicity with scienter in misstatements or omissions of material fact. The complaint alleges that Alibaba’s public disclosures relating to its IPO concealed the fact that, on July 16, 2014, two months prior to the IPO, high level officials of China’s “powerful” State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) summoned Alibaba to an administrative guidance meeting. Although SAIC administrative guidance proceedings “are open to the public as a matter of [Chinese] law,” this meeting was conducted in secret “to avoid exposing any negative information that might affect the progress of Alibaba’s upcoming IPO.” At the meeting, SAIC warned that unless Alibaba ceased to host a marketplace for the sale of counterfeit goods on its website, it would be subjected to huge repeating fines of 1% of daily gross merchandise value sold on Alibaba’s e‐commerce platforms. The complaint asserts that this concealed information was highly material to investors because the threat required Alibaba to choose between giving up an important source of ts revenue or risking enormous fines, where either outcome would have significant negative impact on Alibaba’s revenues and on the success of its IPO. The importance of this information to investors is illustrated by the fact that, when it was revealed four months subsequent to the IPO, Alibaba’s stock dropped 13% in two days, erasing $33 billion in market capitalization. Alibaba’s IPO raised $25 billion and was the largest in history. Given the eventual market reaction to revelation of the information that was concealed at the time of the IPO, its revelation would likely have had a multi‐billion dollar negative effect.
上诉法庭的法官认为，阿里在IPO 中没有对此信息进行披露，而其实这个信息是对IPO 潜在投资者而言是属于重大的。假设原告所指控的内容属实，那么, 被告是有义务在IPO 的时候，向投资者准确披露阿里所面临问题的严重性(accurately conveyed the seriousness of the problems Alibaba faced).
The alleged omitted facts constituted material information of substantial interest to prospective investors in the company’s planned initial public offering (“IPO”). (materiality requires “a substantial likelihood that the disclsure of the omited fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available” (citation omitted)). Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts, in a manner that accurately conveyed the seriousness of the problems Alibaba faced, so as not to render Defendants’ public disclosures “inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.” For substantially the same reasons, Defendants had a duty to disclose under Regulation S‐18 K, 27 C.F.R. § 229.10 (“Item 303”).
上诉法庭的法官指出，地区法院在驳回的裁决过程中，对于原告的重要指控内容没有妥善考虑， 没有从最有利于原告的角度进行考虑；(小编注：在美国证券集体诉讼的起诉是否驳回的裁决过程中，案例法要求法官需要从对原告有利的角度进行考虑，避免原告失去法律救济的机会）。上诉庭法官指出，比如，在本案中，被告抗辩认为：工商总局很快就撤回白皮书，所以该白皮书是“未经授权的,因此不应该被采纳,” ； 而原告则认为，工商总局之所以能这么快就撤回白皮书是因为阿里巴巴对中国监管机构的影响力所导致。地区法院的法官接受了阿里巴巴的抗辩，同意被告的观点。上诉庭法官认为：原告的这个指控内容是很重要的，地区法官没有接受原告的指控，而是接受了阿里的抗辩，这属于没有从对原告有利的角度考虑， 在诉讼是否驳回的裁决过程中，这不符合案例法的要求。In dismissing the complaint, the district court inappropriately discredited significant allegations on which Plaintiffs’ claims relied, failing to treat the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, and to draw reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor, as required with respect to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). For example, the district court accepted Alibaba’s argument that the rapid withdrawal of the SAIC’s White Paper meant the paper was “unauthorized and, hence, not to be trusted,” rather than crediting Plaintiffs’ proffered reasonable inference that the withdrawal resulted from Alibaba’s influence over Chinese regulators.
上诉庭的法官认为，原告的诉状充分符合欺诈的指控要素(scienter) (小编注：本案中，原告必须能够指出被告的行为属于欺诈性质，不然则指控会被驳回）。 法官指出，欺诈并没有明确的定义，并非黑白简单之分；但是，欺诈可以建立通过展示“属于故意或者轻率性质的强烈情形性正证据 “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” 来予以证明； 包括：“不计后果地无视已知或明显的责任，” 也包括“非常不合理的、与普通标准极端背离的行为“，也包括 “被告已知的、或是如此明显被告有义务知情的危险情况“。The complaint adequately pleads scienter. The scienter analysis has no bright line rules. It can be established by showing “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” Among the ways of demonstrating strong circumstantial evidence of scienter are by detailing “reckless disregard of a known or obvious duty to disclose,” id., including “conduct that is highly unreasonable, representing an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care,” “danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it.”
上诉庭法官指出，综合原告所指控的所有事实（小编注：注意，这里所谓的事实仅仅是原告所主张，法官仅仅是假设这些主张的内容属实，并不代表美国法律在诉讼的这个阶段就认可这些指控内容属实）,总的来说, 原告充分指控了被告的行为符合欺诈性质。法官指出：2014年7月16日的秘密会议（secret meeting)的出席人员包括了工商总局的高级官员和阿里巴巴高级管理层，包括阿里的首席风险官(阿里巴巴合伙人之一),以及阿里巴巴的主要业务部门的高级经理；起诉书还指出, 出席该秘密会议的阿里巴巴代表在日常汇报关系上是直接向本案两位个人被告L或者W汇报的。考虑到该会议规格之高、与会者资历之深、而且是在秘密中进行的， 及工商总局在会议上所作出的威胁对阿里巴巴和即将到来的IPO巨大的潜在影响, 所以， 这样的威胁如果没有向阿里巴巴的高层（管理层，也就是本案的自然人被告）沟通，这几乎是不可想象的 。（小编注：法官据此推断认为阿里高层当时对此所谓的“威胁”是知情的）。Considering “all of the facts alleged, taken collectively,” Plaintiffs adequately plead strong circumstantial evidence of scienter. The July 16, 2014 secret meeting conducted by SAIC was attended by high level Alibaba officers, including Chief Risk Officer (and Alibaba Partner) Xiaofeng Shao, as well as senior managers of each of Alibaba’s primary business units. The complaint alleges that the managers of Alibaba’s business units who attended the meeting reported directly to Defendants Lu or Wu. Considering the highlevel nature of the meeting, the seniority of the attendees, its conduct in secret, and the huge potential impact of the SAIC’s threat made at the meeting on Alibaba and its imminent IPO, it is virtually inconceivable that this threat was not communicated to the senior level of Alibaba’s management, i.e. the individual Defendants.
上诉庭法官认为，被告在IPO 时候没有披露该会议的情况，所以隐瞒了政府在会议上向该公司进行威胁 (threat)的这一事实。法官认为，不论被告是否有已知或者明显的披露义务，这个隐瞒至少属于轻率性质( reckless），从而强有力地说明了被告的行为符合欺诈性质。（小编注：在美国证券集体诉讼案例法中， 轻率也属于欺诈的一种； 这一点和SEC 的诉讼不同，后者可以对过失行为（negligence)进行行追责）Defendants’ subsequent failure to disclose the meeting concealed the true facts about the threat to the company that had been communicated by the government of China. This omission rises to at least “a reckless disregard of a known or obvious duty to disclose,” thus powerfully supports a strong inference that the Defendants acted with scienter. The individual Defendants’ mental states are imputed to Alibaba, and therefore the complaint also adequately pleads scienter for Alibaba.
因此，上诉庭法官以3比0 的投票决定通过，推翻地区法院关于驳回本案的决定，本案发回地区法院按照程序进行审理。
以下是上诉庭的判决书：
简而言之，上诉庭法官认为： 假设原告的指控内容属实，那么，来自"716行政指导会议"对阿里威胁的严重性，阿里需要在IPO 时向投资者披露。
看来，战争并没有结束，大洋彼岸的炮火还很激烈，新的战役即将打响。此战最终结果会如何？阿里能否在接下来的战斗中，再次挫败"诉棍“？ 如果再次被挫败了，"诉棍"会继续上诉到美国最高法院吗？ 如果诉讼不被驳回，则可能进入漫长而复杂的证据开示程序；取证和质疑的过程会更加精彩；此案最终会由陪审团来裁决吗？会和解吗？如果赔偿，那么阿里可能会赔偿多少？阿里会轻易言和吗？
继民财经汇将会继续关注此案的进展，并和大家分享、解读诉讼战的最新战况战情。