法搜网--中国法律信息搜索网
婵炲娲栫欢銉︾┍閳╁啩绱� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘娴煎瓨顦� | 婵℃鐗呯欢锟� | 缂侇喗鍎抽幖褔寮崶鈺冨娇 | 闁告帗鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 婵ɑ鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾斥枖閺囩偟浼� | 闁告艾鐗勯埀顑藉亾闁靛棌鍋撻柛姘炬嫹 | 婵℃鐗呯欢銉у垝妤e啠鍋撻敓锟� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘閸ワ箑濮� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃鎾绘嚑閸愨晜鎷� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉ф暜濮濆瞼妲� | 闁告瑦鐡曢埀顒€鍟撮。鑺ユ償閿燂拷 | 
婵炲娲栫欢銉╁炊閸欍儱濮� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾诲箰閸パ冪 | 閻㈩垰鎽滈弫銈呪枖閺団槅娼� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉р偓鍦仜婵拷 | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂煂婵犱胶鐤� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂⒒椤斿墽鎽� | 婵炲娲濋~澶屾喆閿濆牜鍤� | 閻熶椒绀侀崹浠嬪棘閸ワ箑濮� | 閻庤浜濈涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 婵ɑ鍨甸弲銏犫枖閺囩姾顫� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩姾顫� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩姾顫� | 闁告帗鍨剁涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 缂佲偓閸欍儳绐楁繛澶嬫礈鐞氾拷 | 婵℃鐗呯欢銉ф惥鐎n亜鈼� | 闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾
不是一家人,不进一家门-―美国证券法“证券”定义之“票据”的法律辨析

   通过上述两个方面分析,联邦最高法院得出结论,该“票据”是“证券”。
   结论:
   Reves案之后,“家人相似原则”成了法官们判定某种“票据”是否是“证券”的最重要原则。
   法官们通常先假定“票据”为“证券”,然后对照联邦最高法院的“清单。”
  如果某个“票据”与这个清单所列的“票据”有极强的“家人相似性”,则反驳了假定,该票据不是证券。
  如果某个“票据”与这个清单所列的“票据”不是很相似,法官要继续审议下列动机、销售计划、投资公众合理预期、其他监管方式考量等四个要素,来决定是否将该“票据”增加到法院的清单上。如果可以增加到清单上,则该票据不是证券,反驳了假定;如果不能增加,则该票据是证券。
  注释:对不起,无法在这里对应了,技术问题吧。
 Supreme Court of the United States, 1990. 494 U.S. 56, 110 S. Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47.
 关于农业合作社的概念和法律特征,可以参见笔者文章《美国“合作社”和“非营利性机构”的法律特征分析》,详见笔者个人主页http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article/user/homepage.asp?UserId=54155。
 Advertisements for the notes, which appeared in each Co-op newsletter, read in part:” YOUR CO-OP has more than $ 11,000,000 in assets to stand behind your investments. The Investment is not Federal insured but it is …. Safe…..Secure…..and available when you need it. ” See Securities Regulation-case and material, Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p352。.
 Petitioners alleged that Arthur Young had intentionally failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles in its audit, specifically with respect to the valuation of one of the Co-Op’s major assets, a gasohol plant.
 Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 856 F.2d 52 (1988).
 Supreme Court of the United States, 1985, 471 U.S. 681, 105 S.CT. 2297, 85 L.Ed. 2d 692.
 “Stock is a special case, explicitly limiting our holding to that sort of instrument. Although we refused finally to rule a out a similar per se rule for notes, we intimated that such a rule would be unjustified.” See Securities Regulation-case and material, Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p354.


第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 页 共[9]页
上面法规内容为部分内容,如果要查看全文请点击此处:查看全文
【发表评论】 【互动社区】
 
相关文章




婵炲娲栫欢銉︾┍閳╁啩绱� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘娴煎瓨顦� | 婵℃鐗呯欢锟� | 缂侇喗鍎抽幖褔寮崶鈺冨娇 | 闁告帗鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 婵ɑ鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾斥枖閺囩偟浼� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃锟� | 婵℃鐗呯欢銉у垝妤e啠鍋撻敓锟� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘閸ワ箑濮� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃鎾绘嚑閸愨晜鎷� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉ф暜濮濆瞼妲� | 
婵炲娲栫欢銉╁炊閸欍儱濮� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾诲箰閸パ冪 | 閻㈩垰鎽滈弫銈呪枖閺団槅娼� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉р偓鍦仜婵拷 | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂煂婵犱胶鐤� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂⒒椤斿墽鎽� | 婵炲娲濋~澶屾喆閿濆牜鍤� | 閻熶椒绀侀崹浠嬪棘閸ワ箑濮� | 閻庤浜濈涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 婵ɑ鍨甸弲銏犫枖閺囩姾顫� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩姾顫� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩姾顫� | 闁告帗鍨剁涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 缂佲偓閸欍儳绐楁繛澶嬫礈鐞氾拷 | 闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾