2 2004 12 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 290-96 (1991). 1929
3 primary market secondary market prospectus
4 2004 12 2 / 2 43 6
5 BOT 3 / 4 5 3 4 self-regulatory organization double jeopardy see Jones v. SEC, 115 F.3d 1173 (4 th Cir. 1997) 117-18 1990 14 1998 5 11
6 2004 12 / 6 6 193142
7 outside front cover inside front page inside back page Securities Act of 1933
8 2004 12 (a) 7 8 7 15 U.S.C. 77f(a) (2004). 8
9 dividend policy 9 stock split 9 17 C.F.R. 229.201(c) (2004).
10 2004 12 10 10 89 1 3 89 100116 89 2 1 89 00371
11 contractarians contracting costs 11 11 EASTERBROOK & FISCHEL, supra note 1, at 34. 22 1996
12 2004 12 13 12 23 1999/08/27 17 1999/01/25 13 1999
13 14 14 7 7
14 2004 12 risk factors 15 15 See 17 C.F.R. 229.503(c) (2004). (speculative)
15
16 2004 12 16 16 267-862003 213-25 2003 1999 94 1 1 2004/08/13
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 1934 17 17 C.F.R. 229.303 (2004). 18 See 17 C.F.R. 230.174 (2004); 17 C.F.R. 240.3b-6 (2004).
18 2004 12 19 update 20 21 19 15 U.S.C. 77z-2 (2004); 15 U.S.C. 78u-5 (2004). 20 17 C.F.R. 240.14e-2(b) (2004). 21 16
19
20 2004 12 22 23 22 2391996 236-40 2004 23 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10) (2004) 90 162
21 24 25 direct selling 26 24 10 25 33 3 40 1 1 41 1 1 42 1 1 50 53 1 6 74 25 See 15 U.S.C. 78o (2004); 17 C.F.R. 240.15c2-8 (2004). 26 35 91628 1 0910003639
22 2004 12 27 28 29 30 27 33 1 3 40 1 1 42 1 1 53 1 6 74 28 611 2003 29 15 U.S.C. 77e(b)(2) (2003). 30 48 See 17 C.F.R. 240.15c2-8(b) (2004).
23 31 32 rescind 33 31 28 32 22 242 33 See 15 U.S.C. 77l(a); Wigand v. Flo-Tek, Inc., 609 F.2d 1028, 1035 (2 nd Cir. 1979).
24 2004 12 34 materiality 35 omission 36 34 35 THOMAS LEE HAZEN, THE LAW OF SECURITIES REGULATION 598-60 (4 th ed. 2002). 36 77 57 326-32335-37 1988 omission omission
25 37 non-expert portion 37 92 3 27 0920001301 1 2 3 4 5 6 22 2 25 28 2 157 157 1
26 2004 12 due diligence 1. chief executive officer general manager 2. 3.
27 38 4. 39 5. 40 38 39 See MARC I. STEINBERG, UNDERSTANDING SECURITIES LAW 160-62 (3 rd ed. 2001). 40 92 9 23 1 0920003896 93 7 16
28 2004 12 41 6. 42 43 41 29 14 5 16 26-61 42 43 16 126-36 40 14 4 1
29 7. 44 vice president 44 37
30 2004 12 45 45 HAZEN, supra note 35, at 365-67.
31 46 47 48 46 47 188 23 32 common law agency 20 48 15 U.S.C. 77k(e) (2004)
32 2004 12 1. 49 1 2 3 49 audit attestation audit review 32 36 37 (statement) 16 224-2593 7 16 10 3
33 50 51 52 53 50 STEINBERG, supra note 39, at 167-69. 51 16 213-25 52 See 15 U.S.C. 7262 (2004). 53 94 http://www.csa.org.tw/csadef.asp2004/10/17
34 2004 12 54 2. in-house counsel opinion re legality 54 105 2002
35 55 56 1 2 3 4 10% 57 55 See 17 C.F.R. 229.601(b)(5) (2004). 56 57 comfort letter
36 2004 12 3. aftermarket tracing requirement
37 58 income statement 59 60 61 62 58 See STEINBERG, supra note 39, at 155. 59 17 C.F.R. 230.158 (2004) 60 15 U.S.C. 77k(a) (2004) last paragraph. 61 28 615 62 15 U.S.C. 77k(e) (2004).
38 2004 12 price value 63 64 65 (e) 66 63 15 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 369. 65 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 67 68 67 HAZEN, supra note 35,at 388-92. 68 15 U.S.C. 77k(e) & (f).
40 2004 12 69 69 93 5 120
41
42 2004 12 70 2 70 40 1
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 72 71 511 U.S. 164, 114 S.Ct. 1439 (1994). 72 Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d. (10 th Cir. 1996)
44 2004 12 73 1 2 3 scienter 4 1 2 3 73 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. 1157 (1998).
45 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 74 75 74 16 (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) 8 2004 75 93 174 1 7 7 77 77 77 77 545-63 (1992) 631 1996 93
46 2004 12 generally accepted audit standardgaas 76 77 78 76 guidelines 77 93 4 8 http://www.sfc.gov.tw/secnews/law/trait/93year/trait-21/9300080621-4.doc 2004/06/17 78 37 37 22 29075
47 79 545 174 5 37 2 93 174 2 2 79 10
48 2004 12 Enron
49 2003 2003 1990 2004 1996 1992 1996 1988 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). 14-34 1998 22-331996 1999.3.19 105 2002 1999.3.19
50 2004 12 267-862003 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 8-34 2004 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. 1157 (1998)
51
52 2004 12 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