张某等103名投资者与新大洲控股股份有限公司证券虚假陈述责任纠纷系列案

103 investors including Zhang X V. Sundiro Holding Co., Ltd.

(Series of disputes over liability for securities misrepresentation)

证券虚假陈述　　推定因果关系　　系统风险
securities misrepresentation, presumptive causality, systematic risk

1.只要符合《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》第十一条规定的三个条件，即推定投资者的投资决定与上市公司的虚假陈述行为之间的交易因果关系成立。
1. As long as the three conditions are met, as stipulated in Article 11 of　Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court　on the Trial of Civil Cases for Damages for the Tort of Misrepresentation in the Securities Market　, it can be presumed that the transaction causality between the investment decision of the investors and the misrepresentation of the listed company is established.

2.是否存在系统风险可以通过参照实施日至揭露日期间及前后，上市公司个股股票的走势与该股票所在板块及大盘股票指数的走势是否一致予以综合认定。
2. Whether there is systematic risk can be determined comprehensively by referring to whether the trend of individual stocks of the listed company is consistent with the trend of the sector where the stock belongs and the market stock index during the period between the date of commission of misrepresentationby thesaid company andaround thedate of misrepresentation being exposed.

1.《中华人民共和国证券法》第六十三条、第六十九条；
1. Article 63 and Article 69 of the　Securities Law of the People's Republic of China;

2.《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》第四条、第七条、第八条、第十一条、第十二条、第二十四条、第二十五条、第二十六条、第二十七条、第三十一条。
2. Article 4, Article 7, Article 8, Article 11, Article 12, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26, Article 27 and Article 31 of　Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court　on the Trial of Civil Cases for Damages for the Tort of Misrepresentation in the Securities Market　.

新大洲控股股份有限公司（以下简称新大洲公司）系一家在海南省海口市注册成立的股份有限公司，于1994年5月25日在深圳证券交易所上市，证券名称“*ST大洲”（原名：新大洲A），证券代码“000571”。因新大洲公司在2017年底至2018年期间三次未按《中国证券监督管理委员会上市公司信息披露管理办法》等有关规定披露其为关联公司债务提供担保的事项，中国证券监督管理委员会海南监管局以新大洲公司信息披露违法违规为由对新大洲公司及其相关责任人员给予警告、罚款等行政处罚。新大洲公司将其被行政处罚的有关信息披露后，张某等103名股民分别分批以新大洲公司的虚假陈述行为给其造成投资损失为由，向海口市中级人民法院起诉要求赔偿其投资损失、佣金、印花税损失及相应利息损失。
Sundiro Holding Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Sundiro) is a joint stock limited company incorporated in Haikou, Hainan. It was listed on Shenzhen Stock Exchange on May 25, 1994 (stock name "*ST Sundiro"(original name: Sundiro A), stock code "000571"). Since Sundiro failed to disclose its guarantee for the debts of related companies three times from the end of 2017 to 2018 under the Measures for the Administration of Information Disclosure of Listed Companies of China Securities Regulatory Commission and other relevant provisions, Hainan Supervision Bureau of China Securities Regulatory Commission imposed administrative penalties, including warning and fine, to Sundiro and its relevant liable persons, on the grounds of illegal information disclosure of Sundiro. After Sundiro disclosed the relevant information about such administrative penalty, 103 shareholders including Zhang X　seperatelyfiled lawsuitswith Haikou Intermediate People's Court, and requested　for investment losses, commission, stamp tax　losses and corresponding interest losses, on the grounds of investment losses caused by misrepresentation by Sundiro.

海口市中级人民法院经审理后，认定新大洲公司的违规行为构成虚假陈述行为，依法支持了投资者的相关诉讼请求。新大洲公司不服，提起上诉。海南省高级人民法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
After the hearing, Haikou　Intermediate People's Courtheld that the violation of Sundiro constitutedmisrepresentation and affirmed the relevant claims of investors in acodance withlaw. Sundiro,dissatisfiedwith　the judgment,filed　an appeal. Hainan High People's Court,the second-instance court,ordered as follows: The appeal was dismissed　and the judgment of the first-instance court was affirmed.

海口市中级人民法院认为，第一，新大洲公司因未按《中华人民共和国证券法》规定披露相关担保事项的行为已被中国证券监督管理委员会海南监管局处罚，故存在虚假陈述的违法行为。根据《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》第十一条“原告能够证明下列情形的，人民法院应当认定原告的投资决定与虚假陈述之间的交易因果关系成立：（一）信息披露义务人实施了虚假陈述；（二）原告交易的是与虚假陈述直接关联的证券；（三）原告在虚假陈述实施日之后、揭露日或更正日之前实施了相应的交易行为，即在诱多型虚假陈述中买入了相关证券，或者在诱空型虚假陈述中卖出了相关证券”的规定，投资者提供证据证明新大洲公司实施了虚假陈述，其在虚假陈述实施日之后、揭露日或更正日之前买入新大洲公司股票，故可认定投资者的投资决定与新大洲公司的虚假陈述行为之间的交易因果关系成立。第二，新大洲公司股票在深圳证券交易所上市，所属板块为海南板块，海南板块对新大洲公司股票的影响较大，鉴于虚假陈述期间正处于2018年海南建省30周年之际海南相关利好政策陆续出台落地之时，受此影响海南股票有一波短暂的上涨行情而后又随大盘下跌。因此相关系统风险造成的影响应予考虑，参照海南板块作为损失计算的依据，通过考察期间（第一笔买入时间至基准日）海南板块与新大洲公司个股涨跌幅对比予以综合认定系统风险的比重。
Haikou Intermediate People's Court　held that, firstly, Sundiro had been punished by Hainan Supervision Bureau of China Securities Regulatory Commission for failing to disclose relevant guarantee matters in accordance withthe Securities Law of the People's Republic of China, so there was an illegal act of misrepresentation. According to　Article 11 of Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court　on the Trial of Civil Cases for Damages for the Tort of Misrepresentation in the Securities Market, if thefollowing circumstances　can be proved by the plaintiff, the people's court shall determine that the transaction causality between the plaintiff's investment decision and the misrepresentation is established: (1) Where a party bound by disclosure obligation made misrepresentations; (2) the plaintiff trades in securities directly related to the misrepresentation; (3) the corresponding trading operations was carried out by the plaintiff between the date of commission of misrepresentation by the company being suedand around the date of misrepresentation being exposed　or the correction date, that is, the relevant securities have been purchased after　the　misrepresentation　was committedin terms of buying long, or the relevant securities have been sold after the misrepresentation was committed in terms ofselling short.".The investors had provided evidence to prove that Sundiro committedthe misrepresentation, and they purchased the shares of Sundiro after the misrepresentation date, before the disclosure date or the correction date. Therefore, it can be concluded that the transaction causality between the investment decision of the investors and the misrepresentation of Sundiro was established. Second, Sundiro's stock was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, belonging to the Hainan sector, which had a great influence on Sundiro's stock. Because the misrepresentation wascommitted　at the time when the relevant favorable policies of Hainan were successively issued for　the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of Hainan Province in 2018, the Hainan sector stocks had a short-term rise and then fell with the market index. Therefore, the impact caused by relevant systematic risks shall be considered. With reference to the Hainan sector as the basis for loss calculation, the proportion of systematic risk shall be comprehensively determined, by comparing the rise and fall of the Hainan sector with that of Sundiro during the investigation period (from the first purchase date to the benchmark date).

上市公司依法披露的信息，必须真实、准确、完整，不得有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏。上市公司未按法律规定公开披露重大信息资料，或有虚假记载、误导性陈述、重大遗漏等情形，致使投资者在证券交易中遭受损失的，应当承担赔偿责任。
The information disclosed by a listed company in accordance with law　shall be true, accurate, and complete, and shall not contain false records, misleading statements, or major omissions. Where a listed company fails to disclose material information under laws, or its information contains false records, misleading statements, major omissions, etc., which cause losses to investors in securities trading, it shall bear the liability for compensation.

根据法律及司法解释规定，投资者的投资决定与上市公司的虚假陈述行为之间是否存在因果关系采纳推定因果关系的做法。人民法院在审理该系列案过程中，依法审查了新大洲公司关于其虚假陈述行为与投资者的损失之间不具有因果关系的抗辩理由，认定新大洲公司没有完成举证证明责任，投资者的投资损失与上市公司的虚假陈述行为之间存在因果关系。同时，考虑到新大洲公司实施证券虚假陈述行为的期间，公司股票亦受到证券市场本身的系统风险的影响，故在扣除证券系统风险因素后，仅支持了投资者的部分诉讼请求。本案的处理结果，既依法保护了中小投资者合法权益，督促上市公司依法及时全面完整地进行信息披露，确保公司经营管理透明，保障中小投资者的知情权，在保护中小投资者合法权益方面具有典型意义；同时也依法维护了上市公司的权益，进一步优化证券市场的投资环境，为海南资本市场健康、稳定发展提供有力的司法保障。
According to the provisions of relevant laws and judicial interpretations, the presumption of causality is adopted to determine whether there is a causal relationship between the investment decision of investors and the misrepresentation of listed companies.　In this case,Sundiroargued thatthere was no causal relationship between its misrepresentation and the investor's losses under laws. After　trial, thecourtheld　that Sundiro fathe legal rights and interests　of minority investors　under laws, urged listed companies to disclose information timely, comprehensively, and completely under laws, ensured the transparency of their operation and management, guaranteed the right to know of minority　investors, with a special　significance in protecting the legal rights and interests　of minority　investors; In addition, it also safeguarded the rights and interests of listed companies under laws, further optimized the investment environment of the securities market, and provided a powerful judicial guarantee for the sound and stable development of Hainan’s capital market.