The Value of Rational Investor Decision Criteria in Determining the Significance and Compensation Amount of False Statements in Securities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/s6q7dp98Keywords:
False statements in securities, Materiality determination, Rational investor decision-making criteria, systemic risk deduction.Abstract
Although price sensitivity standards provide a quantitative basis for determining materiality, they are difficult to fully reflect market complexity, and there is a lack of unified standards for systemic risk deduction, resulting in differences in judicial rulings. This article analyzes the problems in judicial practice, explores the value of rational investor decision-making standards, and proposes a 'Dual Track' path that organically combines them with price sensitivity standards. In terms of materiality determination, reference should be made to relevant provisions of the Securities Law for explicit processing, and specific quantitative standards should be set by combining with the DuPont analysis method; It is recommended to use scientific methods to eliminate the impact of systemic risks in determining the amount of compensation. The research aims to improve the mechanism for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of investors and listed companies, and provide theoretical and practical references for building a healthy and orderly securities trading market.
Downloads
References
[1] Guo, F. Recognition and Compensation of False Statement Tort . China Legal Science, 2003 (2), 95-99.
[2] Fan, J. The Price Impact Theory in Civil Liability for Securities Misrepresentation: Theoretical Reflection and Practical Disputes. Financial Law Review, 2023, (5), 35-50.
[3] Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China. Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases for False Statement Torts in the Securities Market Misrepresentation Torts (Article 10). 2022. National Database of Laws and Regulations. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://flk.npc.gov.cn/index.
[4] Halliburton Co. et al. v. Erica P.John Fund, Inc., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., 2014. No. 13-317 [U.S.]. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from FindLaw: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/13-317.html.
[5] Lipton, A. M. Halliburton and the Dog That Didn't Bark. 10 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y. 2015.
[6] Dunbar, F. C., & Heller, D. Fraud on the Market Meets Behavioral Finance. 2006. 31 DEL. J. CORP. L., 455.
[7] Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China. Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases for False Statement Torts in the Securities Market Misrepresentation Torts (Article 31). National Database of Laws and Regulations. 2022. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://flk.npc.gov.cn/index.
[8] Chen, G. H. Path Selection for Determining Losses from Securities Misrepresentation Torts. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 2023. 41(6), 100-111.
[9] Liu, M. 1, et al. v. XX Company 1, et al. Hu 74 Min Chu No. 800 [Civil Ruling] [C]. Shanghai Financial Court. 2023. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from China Judgments Online: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn (Ruled on May 27, 2025).
[10] Ke, Z. C., et al. v. Anhui Huaxin International Holdings Co., Ltd., et al. Hu 74 Min Chu No. 1895 [Civil Ruling]. Shanghai Financial Court. 2021. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from China Judgments Online: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn (Ruled on May 13, 2022).
[11] Shanghai DZH Limited, Lixin Certified Public Accountants v. Cao, J. R., Wu, M. W., et al. Hu Min Zhong No. 147 [Civil Ruling]. Shanghai Higher People's Court. 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from China Judgments Online: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn (Ruled on September 29, 2018).
[12] Founder Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Lu, Y. B., Yang, J. P., Cai, Z. Q., Pan, X. F. Hu Min Zhong No. 263 [Civil Ruling]. Shanghai Higher People's Court. 2019. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from China Judgments Online: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn (Ruled on September 4, 2019).
[13] Geng, L. H., & Zhu, X. Y. Price Impact in Civil Liability for Securities Misrepresentation. Legal Forum, 2023. (6), 84-95.
[14] Wang, L., & Zhu, Z. H. Research Innovation and Application Progress of Event Study Methodology. Foreign Social Sciences, 2012. (1), 138-144.
[15] Fisch, J. E., et al. The Logic and Limits of Event Studies in Securities Fraud Litigation. 96 Tex. L. Rev., 2018. 553.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
