Research On The Determination Of Disclosure Date Of The False Statement In The Securities Law

In the current trial of compensation cases for false statements in China,there are certain problems in determining the date of disclosure of false statements.Judicial interpretation is unclear on the specific provisions for the disclosure date,leading to disputes in the judicial practice.Insufficient theoretical research makes it impossible to consider the complex situation of the process of revealing false statements in judicial practice and fail to protect the interests of the injured investors effectively.The article is based on the status quo of the disclosure date in the compensation cases and analyzes the shortcomings of the traditional theory of the disclosure date,further expanding the theories of the issue of the identification of the day and proposing specific methods for identifying the date of disclosure.This article consists of four parts except for the foreword.The first part,the status quo and problems of determinating the disclosure date of the false statements.In the judicial interpretation,the specific provisions on the disclosure date are not clear.Through the statistical research,it is found that in the judicial practice,there are a lot of disputes on the disclosure date and the court tends to determine the date of the announcement of the “Notice of Filing Investigation” as the disclosure date.In terms of theoretical research,most of the existing literatures in China focus on revealing the principled research of the day,but ignore the existence of multiple revealing days in the complex revealing situation.And it lacks of researches on the partial disclosure of the“squeezing toothpaste”.The second part,the limitations of the traditional theory.Firstly,the process of revealing false statements is complex,and traditional theories fail to recognize the importance of classifying the disclosure of false statements.The CSRC’s“Notice of Filing Investigation”does not completely reveal the false statement.Secondly,the principle of protecting investors was not fully implemented in detemining the disclosure date.Only one disclosure date is difficult to effectively protect investors.In the Daqing Case,two disclosure days were determined,but some victims were excluded.The reason is that there is a lack of specific theoretical support for the interests of investors by identifying multiple disclosure days.Finally,the traditional theories ignore the false clarification of the false statement by the perpetrator.The false clarification of the false statement actor affected the disclosure date,but the actor did not bear the corresponding adverse consequences.The third part,the theory expansion of the false statement disclosure date determination.Firstly,classify the different revealing situations of false statements by using the number of false statements and whether they are fully revealed.Secondly,defining the obligation to effectively correct the misrepresentation of the perpetrato,it’s from the of the information disclosure institution.The false statement actor shall be liable for the quality of the content of the corrected information.The actor’s effective correction within the 30 th correction period is deemed to fulfill the obligation of effective correction.The fourth part,the method of determination of the disclosure date.According to whether the actor has fulfilled the obligation of effective correction,it is decided whether the actor should bear the adverse consequences of the disclosure date or not.In the case of Fulfilling the “Effective Correction Obligation”or“Unfulfilling the Effective Correction Obligation”,the specific identification of the disclosure date shall be made in conjunction with one or more false statements in practice.