第六章公開說明書

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "第六章公開說明書"

犹江
7 years ago
Views:

2 mandatory disclosure Louis D. Brandeis Other People s Money Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman. social waste 1 1 See John C. Coffee, Jr., Market Failure and the Economic Case for A Mandatory Disclosure System, 70 VA. L. REV. 717 (1984). See FRANK H. EASTERBROOK & DANIEL R. FISCHEL, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE LAW (1991). 1929

3 3 primary market secondary market prospectus

4 /

5 5 BOT 3 / self-regulatory organization double jeopardy see Jones v. SEC, 115 F.3d 1173 (4 th Cir. 1997)

6 /

7 7 outside front cover inside front page inside back page Securities Act of 1933

8 (a) U.S.C. 77f(a) (2004). 8

9 9 dividend policy 9 stock split 9 17 C.F.R (c) (2004).

11 11 contractarians contracting costs EASTERBROOK & FISCHEL, supra note 1, at

12 /08/ /01/

14 risk factors See 17 C.F.R (c) (2004). (speculative)

15 15

16 /08/13

17 17 management s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations MD&A 17 trend information forward looking good faith 18 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Securities Exchange Act of C.F.R (2004). 18 See 17 C.F.R (2004); 17 C.F.R b-6 (2004).

18 update U.S.C. 77z-2 (2004); 15 U.S.C. 78u-5 (2004) C.F.R e-2(b) (2004)

19 19

20 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10) (2004)

21 direct selling See 15 U.S.C. 78o (2004); 17 C.F.R c2-8 (2004)

22 U.S.C. 77e(b)(2) (2003) See 17 C.F.R c2-8(b) (2004).

23 rescind See 15 U.S.C. 77l(a); Wigand v. Flo-Tek, Inc., 609 F.2d 1028, 1035 (2 nd Cir. 1979).

24 materiality 35 omission THOMAS LEE HAZEN, THE LAW OF SECURITIES REGULATION (4 th ed. 2002) omission omission

25 25 37 non-expert portion

26 due diligence 1. chief executive officer general manager 2. 3.

27 See MARC I. STEINBERG, UNDERSTANDING SECURITIES LAW (3 rd ed. 2001)

29 vice president 44 37

30 HAZEN, supra note 35, at

31 common law agency U.S.C. 77k(e) (2004)

32 audit attestation audit review (statement)

33 STEINBERG, supra note 39, at See 15 U.S.C (2004)

34 in-house counsel opinion re legality

35 % See 17 C.F.R (b)(5) (2004) comfort letter

36 aftermarket tracing requirement

37 37 58 income statement See STEINBERG, supra note 39, at C.F.R (2004) U.S.C. 77k(a) (2004) last paragraph U.S.C. 77k(e) (2004).

38 price value (e) U.S.C. 77k(g) (2004). 64 Beecher v. Able, 435 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), affirmed on the other grounds 575 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir. 1978). see HAZEN, supra note 35, at Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8 th Cir. 1996). 66 Voege v. Ackerman, 364 F.Supp. 72, 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

39 HAZEN, supra note 35,at U.S.C. 77k(e) & (f).

41 41

43 43 aiding and abetting Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. 71 (b) 10b-5 secondary or derivative liability (e) substantial assistance U.S. 164, 114 S.Ct (1994). 72 Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d. (10 th Cir. 1996)

44 scienter Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Broomberg, A New Standard for Aiders and Abettors Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 52 BUS. LAW. 1 (1996); Gareth T. Evans & Daniel S. Floyd, Secondary Liability Under Rule 10b-5: Two Years After Central Bank, 52 BUS. LAW. 13 (1996). Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Broomberg, Liabilities of Lawyers and Accountants Under Rule 10b-5, 58 BUS. LAW (1998).

45 45 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) (1992)

46 generally accepted audit standardgaas guidelines /06/

48 Enron

49 Frank H. Easterbrook, & Daniel R. Fischel, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (1991). Thomas Lee Hazen, The Law of Securities Regulation (4th ed. 2002). Marc I. Steinberg, Understanding Securities Law (3rd ed. 2001)

50 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of John C. Coffee, Jr., Market Failure and the Economic Case for A Mandatory Disclosure System, 70 Var. L. Rev. 717 (1984) Gareth T. Evans & Daniel S. Floyd, Secondary Liability Under Rule 10b-5: Two Years After Central Bank, 52 Bus. Law. 13 (1996) Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Broomberg, A New Standard for Aiders and Abettors Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 52 Bus. Law. 1 (1996) Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Broomberg, Liabilities of Lawyers and Accountants Under Rule 10b-5, 58 Bus. Law (1998)

51 51

52 The Legal Framework of Prospectuses Ming-chiu Yie Abstract In the primary market, the prospectus probably is the most important tool for disclosure. To make an investment decision, investors are relied on the information in the prospectus supplied by the issuer. Thus, reliability and scope of the prospectus have become a regulatory focus. This article is a survey of the current prospectus regulatory framework in Taiwan, with a comparative approach of U.S. law, raising legal arguments and suggestions for the future law making. Emphases are three: 1. the practicability of disclosure contents imposed by the authorities; 2. the civil and criminal liabilities for failing to deliver prospectus; and 3. the civil and criminal liabilities for material misstatements or omissions. Keywords: prospectus, disclosure, due diligence, signature, dividend policy

untitled

untitled RESEARCH REPORT 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SEC v. Otis & Co., 18 F. Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio 1936) A.T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F.2d 393 (2d Cir. 1967) Mutual Shares Corp. v. Genesco, Inc. 384 F.2d 540 (2d Cir.

第六章 公開說明書

第六章公開說明書