法译研究 | 公司股东欺诈索赔之披露违规行为
lucy668 2024年05月13日 星期一 下午 17:35
中国译协法律翻译委员会成立于2016年，是全国学术性、行业性非营利社会团体分支机构，委员会由最高法、最高检、司法部、律协、法学会以及全国各高校、行业组织等的法律翻译相关领域知名专家学者组成，常设工作机构为中国译协法律翻译委员会秘书处。”
诉讼背景
In 2018, when Moab Partners L.P. filed a securities class action alleging that defendant Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. (MIC) made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the potential impact of a new international fuel regulation on MIC’s fuel storage business. Plaintiffs further alleged that after the regulation took effect, the demand for MIC’s services plummeted, causing MIC’s stock price to decline. Plaintiffs argued that Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K obligated MIC to disclose the impending regulation and its likely impact on MIC’s business, and that MIC’s failure to do so violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
在2018年，Moab Partners L.P.对麦格理基础设施公司（MIC）提起了证券集体诉讼，控告其就新的国际燃料法规对MIC燃料储存业务的潜在影响存在重大虚假陈述和遗漏。原告还称，该法规生效后，对 MIC 服务的需求急剧下降，导致 MIC 的股价下跌。根据美国证券交易委员会（SEC）S-K监管规制第303项，MIC有责任披露即将出台的法规及其对公司业务可能造成的影响，而MIC未能遵守这一规定，违反了《交易法》第10（b）条和第10b-5条。
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
提起欺诈诉讼的原告还有责任证明六个要素：(1)重大虚假陈述（misrepresentation）或遗漏（omission）；(2)被告方的明知（scienter）；(3)虚假陈述或遗漏与证券买卖之间的联系；(4)原告对虚假陈述或遗漏的依赖（reliance）；（5）原告经济损失（economic loss）；(6)原告的信赖与经济损失之间的因果关系。
The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for failure to plead any material misrepresentations or omissions as well as scienter. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court, which ruled that the district courts decision was vacated and allowed the investor lawsuit against MIC to proceed based on this failure to comply with Item 303. MIC appealed, requesting that the Supreme Court clarify if SEC disclosure violations are valid basis for shareholder fraud claims.
地区法院驳回了原告的诉讼，理由是原告未对任何重大虚假陈述或遗漏以及故意提出指控。随后，原告向第二巡回法院上诉，第二巡回法院裁定撤销地区法院的判决，并允许股东以未遵守第303条为由对MIC提起诉讼。对此，MIC提出上诉，希望最高法院就违反SEC披露规则是否能成为股东欺诈索赔的有效依据作出决定。
Item 303
美国是最早制定专门针对上市公司环境信息披露制度的国家。1934年通过的《证券法》的S-K监管规制第101条、第103条、第303条规定上市公司要披露重要信息，不管是财务还是非财务信息，其中包括环境负债、遵循环境和其他法规导致的成本等内容。9年，SEC在规章S—K中新增了第303项（Item 303），即“管理层对财务状况和经营结果讨论和分析”(MD&A)，规定如果任何趋势、要求、承诺、事件或不确定性当前为公司管理层所知晓，并且有可能对公司的财务状况或经营结果产生重大影响，那么管理层有义务对其加以披露。
1. 第二巡回法院：违反SEC披露规则可作为股东欺诈索赔的有效依据
Securities class action defendants and their lawyers are very good at attracting the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court by predicting that terrible things will happen if the justices dont intervene.
证券集体诉讼的被告及律师非常擅长通过预测法官不干预会产生不良后果，从而引起美国最高法院的注意。
MICs lawyers at Winston & Strawn told the Supreme Court that the 2nd Circuit stands alone in its insistence that the violation of an SEC rule requiring the disclosure of potentially important trends or uncertainties can be the basis of a private shareholder fraud class action. (The rule, known as Item 303 of Regulation S-K, is intended to provide investors with information about issues that, in the view of corporate leaders, are reasonably likely to affect the companys future operations or finances.)
C要求披露潜在重要趋势或不确定性的规定，可以作为私人股东欺诈集体诉讼的依据。(该规定被称为S-K条例第303项，旨在向投资者提供公司领导人认为有可能影响公司未来运营或财务状况的相关信息。)
As the lead plaintiffs in the underlying shareholder class action pointed out in their brief opposing Supreme Court review, securities class action defendants similarly predicted disaster when they pitched the 2017 Leidos case, warning the justices that markets would be upended because the 2nd Circuit had exposed companies to “potentially massive liability for omitting information that might later be found to be a trend or uncertainty under Item 303.”
7年莱多斯案时也同样预测到不幸，并警告大法官们，市场将被颠覆，因为第二巡回法院曾让公司“因遗漏日后可能被裁决为第303项下的‘趋势性’或‘不确定性’的信息，而承担潜在的巨大责任。”
That didnt happen, according to the opposition brief from shareholders counsel of record, David Frederick of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick. Its actually quite rare, Frederick argued, for securities class action plaintiffs to assert a claim for SEC disclosure rule violations.Even in the purported hub of such cases, the 2nd Circuit, only 12 lawsuits a year, on average, cite the SEC rule as the basis of a claim.
rederick认为，证券集体诉讼原告对违反 SEC 披露规则而提出索赔的情况其实很罕见。即使在此类案件所谓中心的第二巡回法院，平均每年也只有12 起诉讼援引SEC规则作为索赔依据。
And those claims, moreover, almost never succeed. The 2nd Circuit, according to the shareholders brief, requires plaintiffs asserting a claim based on Item 303 disclosure violations to show that the omitted information meets the Supreme Courts high bar for materiality in private securities litigation. The 2nd Circuit also, the brief said, requires shareholders to show that the company intended to defraud investors by violating the SEC disclosure rule.
另外，这些索赔几乎从未成功。根据股东辩护意见，第二巡回法院要求原告根据第303项的违规披露行为提出索赔，以证明被遗漏的信息符合最高法院针对私人证券诉讼重大性的高标准。辩护意见称，第二巡回法院还要求股东证明，该公司意图违反美国证券交易委员会的披露规则来欺诈投资者。
2. 第九巡回法院：违反SEC披露规则不可作为股东欺诈索赔的有效依据
In a direct split with the 2nd Circuit, MIC said, the 9th Circuit explicitly held in 2014s In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation that violations of the SEC rule cannot, by themselves, justify shareholder class actions.MIC表示，与第二巡回法院的意见截然不同的是，第九巡回法院在2014年的英伟达（NVIDIA）公司证券诉讼中明确裁定，违反SEC规则本身不能作为股东集体诉讼的理由。MIC also warned, with amicus backing from the Washington Legal Foundation, that the 2nd Circuits approach exceeds the bounds of Supreme Court precedent on shareholders right to sue companies for fraud. The SECs disclosure rule is inherently subjective and flexible, MIC said. Thats a bad fit, Winston & Strawn argued, for private securities fraud claims under the Exchange Act, which require plaintiffs to show intentional deception.在来自华盛顿法律基金会的法庭之友的支持下，MIC还警告称，第二巡回法院的做法超出了最高法院关于3. 结论
Without a resolution of the circuit split, MIC said, plaintiffs will forum shop to bring Item 303 cases in the 2nd Circuit. And unless the Supreme Court reins in the 2nd Circuit, argued MIC and its supporters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, companies will try to avert those cases by larding up their securities filings with all kinds of defensive disclosures about remotely conceivable risks. Over-disclosure, said MIC and the Chamber, undermines the SECs rule – and leaves investors without a meaningful way to assess risk.MIC表示，如果不能解决巡回上诉法院的分歧，原告将选择在第二巡回上诉法院提起有关第303项的诉讼。MIC及其美国商会(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)和证券业与金融市场协会(Securities Industry And Financial Markets Association)的支持者辩称，除非最高法院能对第二巡回上诉法院进行监管，否则公司将通过在证券申报文件中大量披露有关防范风险的信息，来规避这些案件。MIC和美国商会表示，过度披露破坏了SEC的规则，使投资者无法对风险进行有效评估。One consolation for shareholders is that if history is a guide, the U.S. government will back their argument that Item 303 can be the basis of an Exchange Act claim as long as shareholders can show the requisite materiality and fraudulent intent. The Justice Department and the SEC took that position in an amicus brief in the 2017 case.唯一能令股东们欣慰的是，如果以史为鉴，美国政府将支持他们，即只要股东们能证明必要的实质性和欺诈意图，第 303 项就可以作为《交易法》索赔的依据。司法部和美国证券交易委员会曾在2017 年案件的法庭之友的意见陈述中表明了这一立场。词 语 探 析（1）Securities Class Action证券集体诉讼（又称证券欺诈集体诉讼），指投资者因在特定时期内（称为 “集体诉讼期”）购买或出售公司证券，违反证券法而遭受经济损失所提起的诉讼。（2）Underlying在商业买卖合同中，有一个特定术语：标的资产（underlying asset），是指在合同中规定的涉及交易范围的资产或是司法案件中涉及纠纷的需要明确的财产。标的资产包括动产和不动产（movable and immovable property），可以是现金（ready money，cash）、证券（security）和房产（house property）等。（3）Materiality 在SEC中该词通常译为“重大性”，重大性的概念是SEC披露要求的核心。除了法定要求的单项披露（line-item disclosure）外，公司仅负责披露有关“理性投资者在决定是否购买或出售注册证券时很可能会重视的那些事项”。（4）Forum shopping选择法庭，也称挑选法院，择地行诉。指诉讼当事人在起诉时选择最有可能有利于其判决的法院来审理其案件。该术语使用语境已更加广泛，指为利害关系、诉状或诉讼反复寻找审判地或愿意审理的法官，直到找到为止的行为。参考文献
s-supreme-court-decide-if-sec-disclosure-violations-are-valid-basis-2023-09-29/
[3]https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2023/10/23/debevoise-discusses-supreme-court-case-on-whether-a-private-right-of-action-exists-for-deficient-mda/?amp=1
[4]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping
本文转载自【中国政法大学MTI教育中心】翻译工作坊 I 公司股东欺诈索赔之披露违规行为
审核｜法律翻译委员会秘书处
本文内容来自网络，仅供学习、参考、了解，不作为投资建议。股市有风险，投资需谨慎！