| 關 鍵 詞： |
規則 10b-5；默示訴權；10b-5 訴訟；共同侵權行為人；代位求償；公開發行；團體和解；直接責任；衍生責任；故意；類似的分擔額原則 |
| 中文摘要： |
在 1933 年證券法（Securities Act of 1933）及 1934 年證券交易法（Securities Exchange Act 1934；證交法）中所明文規範之八個責任條款中，Sections 9 及 18 所規定的被告，其地位與 10b-5 規定的被告地位極為相近，可以作為判斷是否賦予此等被告有請求分擔額權利的參考基準。
Sections 9 及 18 中有關分擔額請求權的規定幾乎相同，均准許被告「如同契約關係般，向任何應有責任支付相同金額之人－如果已參與原始訴訟－請求分擔額。」我們認為這些對於應分擔額的明文規定，是聯邦法律的一個重要特徵，法律一致性原則（consistency）要求我們必須採取「類似的分擔額原則」（like contribution rule）以適用基於 Rule 10b-5 所發生的訴權。假設 Sections 9、10 及 18 三個條文之立法目的相同、運作方式相似時，可以允許 10b-5 規範之訴訟亦得主張分擔額，我們找不到如此主張會存在破壞制定法條文立法目的之理由。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Rule 10b-5；implied private right；10b-5 action；joint tortfeasor；subrogate；public offering；class settlement；direct liability；derivative liability；scienter；like contribution rule |
| 英文摘要： |
（Of the eight express liability provisions contained in the 1933 and 1934 Acts, §§ 9 and 18 impose liability upon defendants who stand in a position most similar to 10b-5 defendants for the sake of assessing whether they should be entitled to contribution.）
（Sections 9 and 18 contain nearly identical express provisions for a right to contribution, each permitting a defendant to “recover contribution as in cases of contract from any person who, if joined in the original suit, would have been liable to make the same payment.” We think that these explicit provisions for contribution are an important, not an inconsequential, feature of the federal securities laws and that consistency requires us to adopt a like contribution rule for the right of action existing under Rule 10b-5. Given the identity of purpose behind §§ 9, 10（b）, and 18, and similarity in their operation, we find no ground for ruling that allowing contribution in 10b-5 actions will frustrate the purposes of the statutory section from which it is derived.）
|
| 目 次： |
判決要旨
關鍵詞
事實
判決
理由
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|