判例译析｜Ernst案：若没有任何故意，公民能否以反欺诈提起损害赔偿之诉？

译者｜王诗语 南京大学LL.B.

审稿｜曾梓栩 外交学院法本

         戚若音 UCB LL.M.

编辑｜王冰子 烟台大学法本

         于杰 上海对外经贸大学本科

责编｜王有蓉 西安外国语大学本科

Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder[1]

欧内斯特诉霍克费尔德

425 U.S. 185 (1976)

原告：欧内斯特会计师事务所

被告：霍克费尔德

Petitioner, Ernst & Ernst, is an accounting firm. From 1946 through 1967, it was retained by First Securities Company of Chicago (First Securities) to perform periodic audits of the firm's books and records. Respondents, who were customers of the brokerage firm, invested in a securities scheme ultimately revealed as fraudulent and perpetrated by the firm's president and principal stockholder.

原告欧内斯特是一家会计师事务所。从1946年到1967年，它被芝加哥第一证券公司（以下简称“第一证券”）聘用，负责对该公司的账簿和记录进行定期审计。被告则是这家证券公司的客户，他们投资了该公司总裁（也是主要股东）实施的一个欺诈性证券骗局。

After the fraud came to light, respondents filed an action for damages against petitioner under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), which makes it unlawful to use or employ "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in contravention of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. It was alleged that the brokerage firm president's scheme violated § 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that petitioner had "aided and abetted" the violations by its "failure" to conduct proper audits of the firm, thereby failing to discover internal practices that prevented an effective audit.

欺诈行为被曝光后，被告根据《1934年证券交易法》第10(b)节对原告提起损害赔偿诉讼。该节规定，违反证券交易委员会（以下简称“证监会”）规则使用“操纵性或欺骗性的装置或计谋”是非法的。被告认为，证券公司总裁的计划违反了第10(b)节和10b-5规则，而原告“未能”对该公司进行适当的审计，因此未能发现影响审计的内部操作，从而“协助并教唆”了这些违法行为。

The District Court granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action, holding that whether or not a cause of action could be based merely on allegations of negligence, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioner had conducted its audits in accordance with generally accepted standards. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that one who breaches a duty of inquiry and disclosure owed another is liable in damages for aiding and abetting a third party's violation of Rule 10b-5 if the fraud would have been discovered or prevented but for the breach, and that there were genuine issues of fact as to whether petitioner committed such a breach and whether inquiry and disclosure would have led to discovery or prevention of the president's fraud.

地区法院通过了原告的简易判决动议，并驳回了诉讼请求，认为无论是否可以仅将对过失的指控作为诉因，本案在原告是否按照普遍接受的标准进行了审计方面不存在重大的事实争议。上诉法院推翻了地区法院的结论并将案件发回重审，认为：如果不是因为违反10b-5规则，欺诈行为本可以被发现或阻止的情况下，违反对他人的调查和披露义务的一方应因协助和教唆第三方违反10b-5规则而承担损害赔偿责任，并且，关于原告是否违约，以及调查和披露是否会导致发现或防止总裁的欺诈行为存在着重大的事实争议。

(图片源自网络）

Whether a private cause of action for damages will lie under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the absence of any allegation of "scienter" -- intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud？

在没有任何“故意”——即欺骗、操纵或欺诈意图——的情况下，公民个人能否基于反欺诈条款第10(b)节和10b-5规则提起损害赔偿之诉？

A private cause of action for damages will not lie under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the absence of any allegation of "scienter," i.e., intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud on the defendant's part.

如果没有任何有关“故意”的指控，即被告意图欺骗、操纵或欺诈的意图，则公民个人不能适用第10(b)节和10b-5规则提起损害赔偿之诉。

(a) The use of the words "manipulative," "device," and "contrivance" in § 10(b) clearly shows that it was intended to proscribe a type of conduct quite different from negligence, and, more particularly, the use of the word "manipulative," virtually a term of art used in connection with securities markets, connotes intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive or defraud investors by controlling or artificially affecting the price of securities.

(a) 在第10(b)节中，“操纵”、“花招”和“计谋”等词的使用清楚地表明，法条旨在禁止一种与过失完全不同的行为，更具体地说，“操纵”一词实际上是一个与证券市场相关的术语，它指的是旨在通过控制或人为地影响证券价格来欺骗投资者的故意的行为。

(b) The 1934 Act's legislative history also indicates that § 10(b) was addressed to practices involving some element of scienter, and cannot be read to impose liability for negligent conduct alone.

(b) 《1934年证券交易法》的立法历史也表明，第10(b)节针对的是含有“故意”成分的做法，而不能被理解为仅对过失行为施加责任。

In the portion of the general analysis section of the legislative report entitled Manipulative Practices, there is a discussion of specific practices that were considered so inimical to the public interest as to require express prohibition, such as "wash" sales and "matched" orders, and of other practices that might in some cases serve legitimate purposes, such as stabilization of security prices and grants of options. These latter practices were left to regulation by the Commission. Significantly, we think, in the discussion of the need to regulate even the latter category of practices when they are manipulative, there is no indication that any type of criminal or civil liability is to attach in the absence of scienter.

立法报告题为“操纵性做法”的总述部分讨论了被认为对公共利益有害、从而需要被明确禁止的具体做法，如“虚假销售”和“匹配订单”[2]，以及在某些情况下可能服务于合法目的的其他做法，如稳定证券价格和期权的授予。后一类做法由证监会来监管。重要的是，我们认为，即使是在讨论当后一类行为变得具有“操纵性”时是否有必要监管，也不意味着在没有“故意”意图的情况下会涉及任何刑事或民事责任。

(图片源自网络）

Furthermore, in commenting on the express civil liabilities provided in the 1934 Act, the Report explains:

"[I]f an investor has suffered loss by reason of illicit practices, it is equitable that he should be allowed to recover damages from the guilty party. . . . [T]he bill provides that any person who unlawfully manipulates the price of a security, or who induces transactions in a security by means of false or misleading statements, or who makes a false or misleading statement in the report of a corporation, shall be liable in damages to those who have bought or sold the security at prices affected by such violation or statement. In such case, the burden is on the plaintiff to show the violation or the fact that the statement was false or misleading, and that he relied thereon to his damage. The defendant may escape liability by showing that the statement was made in good faith."

此外，在评论《1934年证券交易法》中明确规定的民事责任时，立法报告解释说：“如果投资者因他人的违法行为而遭受损失，应被允许获得赔偿，这是公平的……法案规定，任何非法操纵证券价格、或通过虚假或误导性陈述来诱导证券交易、或在公司报告中作出虚假或误导性陈述的人，都应对那些受违规行为或陈述影响购买或出售证券的人承担损害赔偿责任。在这种情况下，原告有责任证明违法行为或声明是虚假或误导性的事实，以及是因为这些违法行为或声明才导致了他的损害。被告可以通过证明该声明是出于善意来免除责任。”

(c) The structure of the 1934 Act and the interrelated Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) does not support the contention that, since § 10(b), in contrast to certain other sections of these Acts, is not, by its terms, explicitly restricted to willful, knowing, or purposeful conduct, it should not be construed to require more than negligent action or inaction. In each instance that Congress in these Acts created express civil liability in favor of purchasers or sellers of securities, it clearly specified whether recovery was to be premised on knowing or intentional conduct, negligence, or entirely innocent mistake. The express recognition of a cause of action premised on negligent behavior in § 11, for example, stands in sharp contrast to the language of § 10(b). Moreover, each of the express civil remedies in the 1933 Act allowing recovery for negligent conduct is subject to significant procedural restrictions indicating that the judicially created private damages remedy under § 10(b) -- which has no comparable restrictions -- cannot be extended to actions premised on negligence, since to do so would allow causes of action under these express 1933 Act remedies to be brought instead under § 10(b), thereby nullifying the effectiveness of such restrictions on those remedies.

(c) 《1934年证券交易法》以及与之相关的《1933年证券法》的结构都不支持这样的观点：与这些法案的其他部分相比，第10(b)节并没有明确限于故意、知情或有目的的行为，因此不应将其解释为过失作为或不作为。为了有利于证券买卖双方明确民事责任，法案中国会规定的每一种情况都明确了赔偿是否以明知或故意行为、疏忽或完全无辜的错误为前提。例如，第11节中明确承认以过失行为为前提的诉因，就与第10(b)节的文本形成了鲜明的对比。此外，《1933年证券法》中每一项明确允许对过失行为进行赔偿的民事救济都受到了重大的程序限制，而第10(b)节中的损害赔偿救济措施没有类似限制，因此不能将其扩展到以过失为前提的诉讼中去。这样做将允许根据《1933年证券法》的救济措施提出诉讼事由，而不是根据第10(b)节提出，从而影响了对这些补救措施的限制的有效性。

(d) While there is language in Rule 10b-5 that could arguably be read as proscribing any type of material misstatement or omission and any course of conduct that has the effect of defrauding investors, whether the wrongdoing was intentional or not, such a reading does not comport with the Rule's administrative history which makes it clear that it was intended to apply only to activities involving scienter. More importantly, the scope of Rule 10b-5 cannot exceed the power granted the SEC under § 10(b), whose language and history compel interpreting the Rule to apply only to intentional wrongdoing.

(d) 虽然10b-5规则中有文本可以被解读为禁止所有类型的重大错误陈述或遗漏，以及所有具有欺骗投资者效果的行为，无论该违法行为是有意的还是无意的，但这种解读与10b-5规则的适用历史不一致。该规则的适用历史明确说明，该规则仅适用于涉及故意的行为。更重要的是，10b-5规则的适用范围不能超过第10(b)节赋予证监会的权力，其文本和历史迫使本院将其解释为仅适用于故意的违法行为。

注释

[1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/185/

[2] “虚假销售”是指所有权不会实际变化的交易；“匹配订单”是指在明知相同或不同人士已就该等证券的买卖发出或将发出数量、时间及价格大致相同的订单的情况下，所下达的买卖该证券的订单。