英语论文网

op the necessary and appropriate rules . About the misrepresentation ( including a material omission , misrepresentation and misleading statements ) of Rule 10 (b) -5 , by clearly defined their compensation claims plaintiff must also prove that the transaction causation and loss causation. However, in judicial practice, the U.S. Supreme Court treated differently in different situations : First, in the case of material omissions , the plaintiff prove that the defendant did not simply disclose to investors the fact that will affect an ordinary prudent investment decisions of investors that just proved to be a major omission of facts , without proof of the existence of a relationship of trust , because the court held that the fact that the defendant published an important obligation , to conceal the fact itself constitutes causality ; second is false and misleading statements in the case , the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States case , seven in Ying: "American civil Liability for securities Fraud ," Jilin University Journal social Sciences 2000 6 requires a plaintiff must prove that he is a trust in the statement of the accused suffered losses . But in 1988 the BasicInc.v.Levinson a case, the Supreme Court accepted the theory of market fraud , and establishes the principle of presumption of trust . In that case, the judgment , the judge considered , "trust that the plaintiff show that the defendant misrepresentation causal link exists between investment losses ," " Although there are several ways to prove the existence of such a relationship , but when the defendant made a false statement , it will be eliminating the burden of proof plaintiff trust , and thus presumed that the causal relationship was established . "

Trust presumption transaction causation is essentially inverted the burden of proof , that presupposes that the normal way transactions in reliance on market pricing and investor confidence defendant publicly disclosed documents, unless the information disclosure obligor can prove a false statement does not affect the market price ; , or other available information weakens the statement in the market influence ; or investor has in fact not trust the market price , if he had known that the statement was false , but for other reasons sell the securities ; otherwise deal thus established that a causal relationship . Therefore presumed to belong to the kind of trust , " a rebuttable presumption of trust ," so-called " rebuttable " presumption transaction is settled in the causal relationship established in the same time, given the information disclosure obligations assumed trust overthrow the defenses , but to make such a defense in practice it is very difficult indeed .

In addition , the simple allocation rules in accordance with the burden of proof from the proven strengths and weaknesses and the nature of the alleged facts perspective , the use of burden of proof , by the information disclosure obligor bear the burden of proof of causation is also fairer , help to protect investors interests. First, the information disclosure obligor usually has a complete organizational forms of companies, institutions , and its master control sufficient sources of information, and has a statutory obligation of information disclosure , investors are disadvantaged compared to ( especially the large number of small investors ) , and its