On January 21, 2022, the Supreme People’s Court issued Several Provisions on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases for Damages for the Tort of Misrepresentation in the Securities Market (hereinafter referred to as the “New Regulations”). The New Regulations comprehensively restructured the judicial interpretation of misrepresentation of securities issued in 2003 and addressed a series of hot issues in judicial practice by the way of, for example, formally removing the administrative or criminal prerequisites; introducing the system of “safe harbor for forward-looking information”; adding the provision of bearish misrepresentation; strengthening the judgment orientation of “holding the principal offender accountable”, and adding provisions on the liabilities of counterparties to major asset restructuring of the company and accomplices in misrepresentation; and refining and clarifying the culpa determination standards and the grounds for the defense of exemption of the issuer’s directors, supervisors and senior executives and intermediaries, etc. The promulgation and implementation of the New Regulations addressed the expectations of the market and judicial community for the Supreme People’s Court to solve major problems in this field, and is a milestone in the field of securities civil compensation litigation.

2022年1月21日，最高人民法院重磅发布《关于审理证券市场虚假陈述侵权民事赔偿案件的若干规定》（下称“《新规》”）。《新规》不仅对2003年证券虚假陈述司法解释进行了全面重新梳理，更就司法实践中一系列的热点问题进行了回应。例如，正式废除前置程序；新增“预测性信息安全港”制度；新增诱空型虚假陈述条款；强化“追首恶”的裁判取向，并增加公司重大资产重组交易相对方、帮助造假者的责任规定；细化并厘清发行人董监高、中介机构的过错认定及免责抗辩事由等等。《新规》的发布与实施回应了市场与司法实务界对最高人民法院解决该领域重大问题的期待，是证券民事赔偿诉讼领域的里程碑事件。

The amendment of the Securities Law in 2019 expanded the concept of class action in traditional civil litigation, emphasized the class action system in the field of securities litigation for the first time, and created a securities class action system with Chinese characteristics. In July 2020, the Supreme People’s Court issued a supporting judicial interpretation on the class action of securities disputes, providing a system guarantee for the implementation of the class action of securities disputes at the level of judicial interpretation. At the same time, the CSRC issued a document in July 2020 designating China Securities Investor Services Center (hereinafter referred to as the “ISC”) and China Securities Investor Protection Fund Corporation Limited to take the functions of litigation representative in securities class action.

2019年《证券法》修改，拓展了传统民事诉讼中集团诉讼的概念，第一次专门在证券诉讼领域强调集团诉讼制度，创设了中国特色的证券集团诉讼制度。2020年7月，最高人民法院出台了关于证券纠纷集团诉讼的配套司法解释，为证券集团诉讼的落地提供了司法解释层面的制度保障。与此同时，证监会在2020年7月发文指定中证中小投资者服务中心有限责任公司（下称“投服中心”）和中国证券投资者保护基金有限责任公司负有证券集团诉讼中的诉讼代表人职能。

In April 2021, the ISC accepted the entrustment to participate as the litigation representative in the “Kangmei Pharmaceutical” securities misrepresentation case. The case marks the first new type of securities class action after the amendment of the Securities Law, involving more than 50,000 investors with great significance. In 2021-2022, class action cases such as “Feilo Acoustics” (involving more than 300 investors), “Huifeng Joint-Stock” (involving more than 200 investors), and “Kangmei Pharmaceutical” were successively adjudicated, while other cases such as “LeTV” (involving more than 2,000 investors) and “Longlive Bio-Technology” (involving more than 1,600 investors) are still on the docket.

2021年4月，投服中心接受委托作为诉讼代表人参加“康美药业”证券虚假陈述纠纷案诉讼，该案是《证券法》修订后首例新型证券集团诉讼案件，涉及投资者5万余人，示范意义重大。2021-2022年，“飞乐音响”（涉投资者300余人）、“辉丰股份”（涉投资人200余人）、“康美药业”等集团诉讼案件先后迎来判决，“乐视网”（涉投资人2000余人）、“龙力退”（涉投资人1600余人）等多起证券集团诉讼案件也在审理过程中。

The judicial interpretation of securities misrepresentation issued in 2003 stipulated that investors must submit relevant administrative penalty decisions or criminal judgment documents when filing civil compensation actions for securities misrepresentation. Following the implementation of registration-based case-acceptance system by the People’s Court in 2015, some courts no longer required administrative or criminal prerequisites in accepting civil cases of securities misrepresentation, while some courts still upheld the requirements. The New Regulations promulgated in January 2022 clearly stipulates that investors do not need to submit administrative penalty decisions or criminal judgment documents for docket of civil complaint, which unified the acceptance standards of this kind of cases in judicial practice.

2003年证券虚假陈述司法解释规定，投资者提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼，必须提交有关行政处罚决定或刑事裁判文书。2015年，人民法院推行立案登记制改革，部分法院在受理证券虚假陈述民事案件不再坚持前置程序，但仍有部分法院要求提供行政处罚决定或刑事裁判文书。2022年1月《新规》明确规定投资者起诉无需提交行政处罚决定或刑事裁判文书，统一了司法实践中的案件受理标准。

The securities specified in the Securities Law include stocks, corporate bonds, government bonds, shares of securities investment funds, depository receipts, asset-backed securities, asset management products and other types of securities. Early securities litigations were mainly stock cases. In recent years, bond default disputes, bond misrepresentation disputes and other bond litigations have seen explosive growth. To this end, the Supreme People’s Court specially issued and distributed the Minutes of the National Courts Symposium on the Trial of Bond Disputes in July 2020, offering unified guidance on the important legal issues in the trial of various bond dispute cases.

《证券法》规定的证券包括股票、公司债券、政府债券、证券投资基金份额、存托凭证、资产支持证券、资产管理产品等各类证券品种。早期证券诉讼案件以股票类案件为主，近年来，债券违约类纠纷、债券虚假陈述纠纷等债券诉讼案件均迎来爆发式增长。为此，最高人民法院在2020年7月专门印发《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》，统一了各类债券纠纷案件审理过程中的重要法律问题。

In addition, from 2021 to 2022, in the case of misrepresentation, the variety of securities involved in litigation has been further enriched, especially in cases heard by Beijing and Shanghai courts. For example, the Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court and the Beijing Financial Court heard the first two cases involving the misrepresentation of debt financing instruments in the inter-bank bond market and made judgments, which triggered widespread market discussion; in addition, the Shanghai Financial Court accepted the first case of misrepresentation of asset-backed securities, which is still under trial.

除此之外，2021-2022年，在虚假陈述类案件中，涉诉证券品种也进一步丰富，尤其以北京、上海地区法院审理案件为代表。例如，北京三中院、北京金融法院首先审理了涉银行间债券市场债务融资工具虚假陈述的两起新型案件并作出判决，引发了市场广泛讨论；此外，上海金融法院受理了资产支持证券虚假陈述第一案，该案目前仍在审理中。

With the removal of the administrative and criminal prerequisites, securities underwriting agencies, credit rating agencies, accounting firms, law firms and other intermediaries have become “deep pockets” of civil compensation. Compared with the issuers who have fallen into the debt crisis, investors incline to sue the intermediary institutions for compensation. It has become a trend to list the intermediary institutions as the co-defendants of securities misrepresentation cases. We’re even seeing a dramatic increase in the number of cases solely involving the intermediary institutions. The liability of the intermediary institutions has continued to attract market attention and discussion.

受前置程序取消影响，证券承销机构、资信评级机构、会计师事务所、律师事务所等中介机构成为民事赔偿的“深口袋”。相较于已经陷入债务危机的发行人，投资者转而向中介机构求偿，将中介机构列为证券虚假陈述共同被告成为趋势，甚至仅仅起诉中介机构的案件也大幅增加，中介机构责任持续引发市场关注和讨论。

In terms of the criteria for determining the liability of intermediary institutions, the New Regulations issued in January 2022 further refined the defenses of exemption of intermediary institutions, and proposed the distinction between special duty of care and ordinary duty of care, allowing intermediary institutions to form reasonable trust in the professional opinions issued by other intermediary institutions after eliminating professional doubts.

在中介机构责任认定标准方面，2022年1月《新规》进一步细化了中介机构免责抗辩事由，并提出特别注意义务与普通注意义务的区分，允许中介机构对于其他中介机构出具的专业意见在排除职业怀疑后形成合理信赖。

In terms of the specific scope of the liability of intermediary institutions, the judicial authorities have gradually abandoned the “one size fits all” approach of joint and several liabilities. It has become the mainstream trend of judicial adjudication to take into account the scope of responsibility, the degree of fault, the causative potency and other factors, and decide that the intermediary institutions should bear proportionate liability with the issuer as appropriate.

在中介机构承担责任的具体范围方面，裁判机构逐步摒弃了“一刀切”式的全额连带责任的审理思路，综合考虑职责范围、过错程度、原因力等因素，酌情判决中介机构按一定比例与发行人承担连带责任已经成为司法裁判的主流趋势。

In the field of securities misrepresentation litigation, the New Regulations issued in January 2022 amended the jurisdiction rules of judicial interpretation issued in 2003, concentrated the jurisdiction of disputes over securities misrepresentation on the intermediate people’s court or special people’s court in the city where the people’s government of the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government is located in, the city specifically designated in the state plan, or the special economic zone, in the place where the issuer is domiciled; the higher people’s court may designate other intermediate people’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over securities misrepresentation cases by reporting to the Supreme People’s Court for the record. Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces took the lead in applying the New Regulations, adding intermediate people’s courts in Suzhou, Wenzhou, Huzhou, Shaoxing and Jinhua as the courts of jurisdiction for securities misrepresentation litigation.

证券虚假陈述诉讼领域，2022年1月《新规》修改了2003年司法解释管辖规则，将证券虚假陈述纠纷案件管辖集中归结于发行人住所地的省、自治区、直辖市人民政府所在的市、计划单列市和经济特区中级人民法院或者专门人民法院；各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院可以根据本辖区的实际情况，确定其他中级人民法院管辖证券虚假陈述诉讼，报最高人民法院备案。江苏和浙江两省率先适用《新规》，新增苏州、温州、湖州、绍兴和金华等中级人民法院作为证券虚假陈述诉讼管辖法院。

In addition, for financial cases, including various types of securities litigations, special courts have been set up in domestic representative regions to exercise centralized jurisdiction over such specialized cases. Following the establishment of the Shanghai Financial Court in 2018 and the Beijing Financial Court in 2021, in September 2022, the Chengdu-Chongqing Financial Court, the third financial court in the country, was inaugurated to focus on financial cases, including securities litigation, in Chongqing and parts of Sichuan Province that belong to the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle.

此外，针对包括各类证券诉讼在内的金融案件，国内代表性地区已经陆续成立专门法院，对专门性案件实施集中管辖。继2018年成立上海金融法院、2021年成立北京金融法院之后，2022年9月，全国第三家金融法院成渝金融法院揭牌成立，集中管辖重庆市以及四川省属于成渝地区双城经济圈内包括证券诉讼在内的金融案件。