內線交易中重大消息認定之實務分析-以企業併購案例為中心

Abstract

本論文係分析：我國截至目前為止，關於以「企業併購案」為重大消息之內線交易案件中，各該法院判決所認定之「重大消息時點」，及其等判決理由中之論述，藉此觀察我國實務趨勢，並予以歸納、評釋，期能裨益於我國內線交易規範之研究。

本論文分為四章，第一章說明研究目的與動機、方法與架構；第二章則針對本研究中心相關之兩大主題「內線交易之重大消息」與「企業併購」，以一、我國內線交易規範中「重大消息之認定」，二、企業併購之規範、類型與階段，及三、關於美國實務對於企業併購之內線交易案例發展等三方面介紹基本規範與背景知識。 第三章則為本論文研究之重心，係以我國迄今＂業經一審法院判決＂之「與企業併購有關之內線交易案件」為搜尋基準，共整理歸納為下列11起案例，分別簡述各案件與「重大消息」有關之案件事實及歷審判決理由。嗣後針對上開整理歸納之結果，提出本文對於實務見解之歸納及評析。 本論文藉由各該案例判決理由之整理歸納與分析，可以發現傳統實務見解中，對於重大消息認定之「成立確定說」肯認與否已非絕對二分法，而我國關於判斷重大消息之實務見解，除了引入美國實務Basic案所採之「機率/影響說」見解之外，也提出「重要議題具體協議說」及「消息鏈」之見解，且為多件判決所引用。然必須注意的是，關於併購類型之重大消息時點，個案判決認定歧異係屬必然，法院當詳加審酌個案變異性，予以綜合權衡個案事實，而無法武斷地採取論者所謂「鮮明界線原則」，因此本文更提出就「併購類型」加以區分之概念，作為此類重大消息認定之參考依據，且建議法院必須更慎重地處理「獲悉範圍」與「重大消息認定」之爭議；期藉由累積迄今的相關實務見解，為我國內線交易規範的發展，建立更清楚的方向。綜上，於第四章彙整本論文之結論。

This paper analyzes: to date, in insider trading cases linked to material information of “mergers and acquisitions”, the “timing of material information” as decided by the relevant court and the reasoning thereof, so as to observe the trend of legal practice in Taiwan and to provide an overview and commentary thereof, with a view to benefit the research regarding insider trading regulations in Taiwan. This paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 explains the purpose and motive, methodology and structure of the research; Chapter 2 provides an introduction of the basic regulatory framework and background regarding the two major subjects surrounding the center of this research: “material information in insider trading” and “mergers and acquisitions”. Three perspectives are addressed: (1)“determination of material information” under Taiwan’s insider trading regulations, (2) the regulations, types and stages for mergers and acquisitions and (3) the development of U.S. legal practices related to insider trading cases related business mergers and acquisitions. Chapter 3 is the center of this research. A searches based “insider trading cases related to mergers and acquisitions” decided courts of first instance”, 11 cases were selected and organized as described therein, each with a brief overview of the related facts and reasoning described in the relevant decision of the court of each level. Based on the above, a summary and commentary of the view expressed by legal practice then follows. Through summarizing and analyzing the reasoning behind such court decisions, this paper finds that the conventional view of the legal practice no longer takes an absolute dichotomous approach in recognizing the “Certainty theory” with respect to determination of material information. In addition to introducing the “Probabilty/Magnitude threshold” used in the U.S. “Basic Inc. V. Levinson”Case, the view of the legal practice in Taiwan also adopted “substantive agreement on material issues” and “news chain” theories with respect to determination of material information, which theories are cited in numerous decisions. However, it must be noted that, in a merger and acquisition context, discrepancies among cases with respect to timing of material information is inevitable. The courts should carefully review the variables in each specific case and evaluate the facts as a whole, and it is not possible to dogmatically adopt the so-called “Bright-Line rule”. Thus, this paper further proposes the concept of differentiating among “types of mergers and acquisitions” as the reference base for determining such type of material information, and suggest that the courts must be more prudent in handling disputes in connection with “scope of knowledge” and “the element of materiality in insider trading” , with a hope that, through collating relevant views of the legal practice to date, a more clear path for the development of Taiwan’s regulatory framework of insider trading could be built. Based on the above, Chapter 4 recapitulates the conclusion of this thesis.