证券纠纷非诉讼程序解决机制研究
摘要
随着中国加入WTO 和中国综合实力的整体提升,中国证券市场的逐步市场化和国际化的进程也在加快,证券业的发展引起了越来越广泛的关注,证券业的地位和重要性正在凸现。与此同时,在证券市场发生各种纠纷也是不可避免的。证券纠纷对于广大投资者的切身利益、证券市场的健康发展、国民经济的稳定增长都将产生重大影响,以合适的方式来公正、高效地解决证券纠纷就成为维护证券市场可持续发展的重要环节,其具有的积极作用是不言而喻的。然而,我国目前的证券纠纷解决机制远未完善,非诉讼程序没有发挥应有的作用,这对于整个证券市场的健康发展将产生消极影响,尤其是对处于弱势地位的中小投资者来说更是如此。因此,本文在吸收、消化、借鉴美国证券市场和发达国家成功经验和做法的基础上,结合我国国情以及我国证券市场的实际情况,多方面、多角度地就如何进一步建立、完善我国的证券纠纷非诉讼程序解决机制作一些有益的探索。
本文共分为八章,从历史和现实、宏观和微观、理论和实际相结合的不同角度对证券纠纷非诉讼程序解决机制做了分析与研究,并提出作者的一些思考和建议。
第一章主要从宏观角度说明了我国证券制度建设及证券纠纷解决机制的现状,指出目前我国缺乏高效率、低成本的证券纠纷解决机制。出现存在该问题的主要原因体现在两个方面,即我国既缺乏有效的司法救济途径,也缺乏非诉讼纠纷解决方式。
第二章简要介绍了非诉讼程序的概念、特征以及类型,讨论了通过单一诉讼途径解决争议所存在的弊病,探讨了非诉讼程序解决争议所具有的特殊功能,论述了非诉讼程序解决纠纷所带给我们的启示。
第三章主要讨论我国证券纠纷的特点,简要阐述了我国证券市场中的各种禁止行为,诸如发行人擅自发行证券、内幕交易、操纵市场行为、虚假陈述、欺诈客户等等;举例了若干典型案例来说明证券纠纷等具有一系列不同于一般民商事争议的特点,分别有数额较大、社会影响广泛、专业性较强、具有涉外性等等。
第四章主要阐述了非诉讼程序的具体形式及其在证券纠纷解决中的应用。分别讨论了谈判、调解、仲裁的概念、特征、基本原则以及它们在证券纠纷解决机制中的具体应用。
As China joins WTO and her overall national power increases, the securities market in China moves even faster in terms of market principles and internationalization. This attracts more and more attention and the importance and role of this market are on the increase too. However, securities transactions produce disputes and these disputes concern the interests of investors and the health of the market itself, bearing heavily upon the stability of the national economy. Thus, it has become an important link to settle securities disputes in a just and efficient and appropriate way for the sustainable development of this market and this is self evident. However, the dispute settlement mechanism in China’s securities market is far from full---fledged and Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter referred to as ADR) is regrettably missing, which have a negative impact upon the development of the market and upon the disadvantaged small investors. Thus, on the basis of research on the experiences and practice of US securities market and developed countries, this paper takes into account the situation of China and her securities market and explores the possibilities of further establishing and improving the ADR mechanism of securities disputes from different facets.
This paper is composed of eight chapters, offering analyses and research into the ADR mechanism of securities disputes in terms of history versus existing situation, the generalities and specifics, theories and practices, etc, and putting forward this author’s considerations and suggestions.
The first chapter describes the existing situation of the securities system in China and problems with the resolution mechanism of securities disputes, pointing out that China lacks a resolution mechanism of securities disputes that can combine high efficiency with low costs. The reasons behind this situation are that China lacks both
the effective judicial remedies for securities disputes and the ADR means. The second chapter briefly touches upon the definition, attributes and types of ADR, discussing in detail the demerits of litigation and the special functions of ADR, thus putting into spotlight the inspirations offered by ADR. The third chapter mainly discusses the attributes of securities dispute in China and the major unlawful acts in securities market, such as unauthorized issue of securities, insider trading, market manipulation, misrepresentation, frauds against customers, etc. The chapter goes on to pick up certain typical cases for special treatment and makes it clear that securities disputes bear certain attributes different from average civil and commercial disputes, as the former features in vast amounts, wide social influences, high degree of industry specialties and certain foreign elements. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the forms of ADR and its application in resolution of dispute securities, respectively describing the definitions, attributes and principles of negotiation, mediation and arbitration and their respective application in securities dispute resolution. The fifth chapter goes on to discuss the merits and values of ADR. The chapter tells that ADR entertains flexibility, high efficiency, confidentiality and independence, in addition, it is able to effectively mobilize resources and help disputing parties to settle disputes amicably and is internationally effective and enforceable. Meantime, ADR also entertains the legal and social functions of increasing efficiency, ensuring justice and maintaining social order and helping build up a harmonious society. The sixth chapter mainly discusses the theories and practices of ADR in US employed for dispute settlement of securities disputes. The chapter first describes the development and historical evolution of arbitration employed in securities dispute resolution. Then the chapter studies landmark cases and offers an insight into the certain important
issues of arbitration employed in securities disputes. The chapter goes to analyze the attributes of securities arbitration in US and arbitration has become the major way out for securities arbitration. Through many years, a quite fully-fledged mechanism has come into being and China should draw upon it. The seventh chapter mainly discusses the existing situation of ADR mechanism for securities disputes in China and problems thereof. This chapter goes on lengthy discussion on the development of ADR in China and problems thereof and offers analysis on the ADR mechanism of securities dispute settlement in China, including such problems like an imperfect framework of legal provisions, court’s monopoly in dispute resolution and high costs for ADR mechanism, etc. Only removal of such problems through systemic arrangements can likely apply ADR and extend the range thereof. The eighth chapter mainly offers the considerations and suggestions of this author on how to improve the ADR mechanism of securities dispute resolution in China. The application of ADR to securities disputes is a systematic work. For this purpose, correct perceptions with regard to ADR have to be firstly established, especially the perceptions for the protection of the lawful interests of investors. Secondly, legislations have to be further amended so as to conform to the attributes of China’s securities market, with the relevant provisions in the Arbitration Law and Securities Law in need of amendment, thus creating favorable conditions for the ADR mechanism for securities dispute resolution. Thirdly, systematic innovations have to be further promoted in order to create a good environment of rule of law for the long term sustainable development of securities market.
本文共分为八章,从历史和现实、宏观和微观、理论和实际相结合的不同角度对证券纠纷非诉讼程序解决机制做了分析与研究,并提出作者的一些思考和建议。
第一章主要从宏观角度说明了我国证券制度建设及证券纠纷解决机制的现状,指出目前我国缺乏高效率、低成本的证券纠纷解决机制。出现存在该问题的主要原因体现在两个方面,即我国既缺乏有效的司法救济途径,也缺乏非诉讼纠纷解决方式。
第二章简要介绍了非诉讼程序的概念、特征以及类型,讨论了通过单一诉讼途径解决争议所存在的弊病,探讨了非诉讼程序解决争议所具有的特殊功能,论述了非诉讼程序解决纠纷所带给我们的启示。
第三章主要讨论我国证券纠纷的特点,简要阐述了我国证券市场中的各种禁止行为,诸如发行人擅自发行证券、内幕交易、操纵市场行为、虚假陈述、欺诈客户等等;举例了若干典型案例来说明证券纠纷等具有一系列不同于一般民商事争议的特点,分别有数额较大、社会影响广泛、专业性较强、具有涉外性等等。
第四章主要阐述了非诉讼程序的具体形式及其在证券纠纷解决中的应用。分别讨论了谈判、调解、仲裁的概念、特征、基本原则以及它们在证券纠纷解决机制中的具体应用。
As China joins WTO and her overall national power increases, the securities market in China moves even faster in terms of market principles and internationalization. This attracts more and more attention and the importance and role of this market are on the increase too. However, securities transactions produce disputes and these disputes concern the interests of investors and the health of the market itself, bearing heavily upon the stability of the national economy. Thus, it has become an important link to settle securities disputes in a just and efficient and appropriate way for the sustainable development of this market and this is self evident. However, the dispute settlement mechanism in China’s securities market is far from full---fledged and Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter referred to as ADR) is regrettably missing, which have a negative impact upon the development of the market and upon the disadvantaged small investors. Thus, on the basis of research on the experiences and practice of US securities market and developed countries, this paper takes into account the situation of China and her securities market and explores the possibilities of further establishing and improving the ADR mechanism of securities disputes from different facets.
This paper is composed of eight chapters, offering analyses and research into the ADR mechanism of securities disputes in terms of history versus existing situation, the generalities and specifics, theories and practices, etc, and putting forward this author’s considerations and suggestions.
The first chapter describes the existing situation of the securities system in China and problems with the resolution mechanism of securities disputes, pointing out that China lacks a resolution mechanism of securities disputes that can combine high efficiency with low costs. The reasons behind this situation are that China lacks both
the effective judicial remedies for securities disputes and the ADR means. The second chapter briefly touches upon the definition, attributes and types of ADR, discussing in detail the demerits of litigation and the special functions of ADR, thus putting into spotlight the inspirations offered by ADR. The third chapter mainly discusses the attributes of securities dispute in China and the major unlawful acts in securities market, such as unauthorized issue of securities, insider trading, market manipulation, misrepresentation, frauds against customers, etc. The chapter goes on to pick up certain typical cases for special treatment and makes it clear that securities disputes bear certain attributes different from average civil and commercial disputes, as the former features in vast amounts, wide social influences, high degree of industry specialties and certain foreign elements. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the forms of ADR and its application in resolution of dispute securities, respectively describing the definitions, attributes and principles of negotiation, mediation and arbitration and their respective application in securities dispute resolution. The fifth chapter goes on to discuss the merits and values of ADR. The chapter tells that ADR entertains flexibility, high efficiency, confidentiality and independence, in addition, it is able to effectively mobilize resources and help disputing parties to settle disputes amicably and is internationally effective and enforceable. Meantime, ADR also entertains the legal and social functions of increasing efficiency, ensuring justice and maintaining social order and helping build up a harmonious society. The sixth chapter mainly discusses the theories and practices of ADR in US employed for dispute settlement of securities disputes. The chapter first describes the development and historical evolution of arbitration employed in securities dispute resolution. Then the chapter studies landmark cases and offers an insight into the certain important
issues of arbitration employed in securities disputes. The chapter goes to analyze the attributes of securities arbitration in US and arbitration has become the major way out for securities arbitration. Through many years, a quite fully-fledged mechanism has come into being and China should draw upon it. The seventh chapter mainly discusses the existing situation of ADR mechanism for securities disputes in China and problems thereof. This chapter goes on lengthy discussion on the development of ADR in China and problems thereof and offers analysis on the ADR mechanism of securities dispute settlement in China, including such problems like an imperfect framework of legal provisions, court’s monopoly in dispute resolution and high costs for ADR mechanism, etc. Only removal of such problems through systemic arrangements can likely apply ADR and extend the range thereof. The eighth chapter mainly offers the considerations and suggestions of this author on how to improve the ADR mechanism of securities dispute resolution in China. The application of ADR to securities disputes is a systematic work. For this purpose, correct perceptions with regard to ADR have to be firstly established, especially the perceptions for the protection of the lawful interests of investors. Secondly, legislations have to be further amended so as to conform to the attributes of China’s securities market, with the relevant provisions in the Arbitration Law and Securities Law in need of amendment, thus creating favorable conditions for the ADR mechanism for securities dispute resolution. Thirdly, systematic innovations have to be further promoted in order to create a good environment of rule of law for the long term sustainable development of securities market.
引文
1. 沈四宝、王晓川、沈建中、马其家:《美国证券仲裁及其启示》,深圳证券交易所网站,http://www.sse.org.cn/main/guide/Article.aspx?ArticleID=502。
2. 马其家:《美国证券纠纷仲裁法律制度研究》,博士学位论文,待出版。
3. 沈四宝、卢云华:《证券纠纷仲裁制度方案设计》,上海证券交易所网站,http://www.sse.com.cn/cs/zhs/xxfw/jysjs/sseResearchList/2003-4.html。
4. 沈四宝、王晓川、沈建中:《仲裁是解决证券纠纷的有效方式》,《法制日报》2002 年11 月7 日。
5. 姚俊逸,《中国证券仲裁实践及其新发展》, 中国仲裁网,http://www.china-arbitration.com/3a1.asp?id=1163&name=仲裁研究。
6. 陈真:《证券纠纷争议解决方式之探讨》,《仲裁与法律》2002 年第5 期。
7. 张韶华:《证券争议:两种法律解决途径的比较分析》,《当代经济科学》2004年1 月。
8. 王存,《从<仲裁法>看我国的证券仲裁制度》,《法学》杂志,1996 年8 月。
9. 叶红光,《证券仲裁制度:证券诉讼的替代机制》,《证券市场导报》,2002年5 月号。
10. 范瑜:《当代中国ADR 的发展》, 中国法理网, 来源:http://www.jus.cn/include/shownews.asp?key=ADR&newsid=348。
11. 何震、方菲:《浅议美国证券仲裁制度的特征》,《武汉大学学报》,2003 年7月。
12. 何震、方菲::《关于美国证券仲裁发展的几个重要判例之评析》,《河北法学》,2003 年11 月。
13. 洪源,《证券仲裁若干问题的探讨》, 中国仲裁网, 来源:http://www.china-arbitration.com/3a1.asp?id=791&name=仲裁研究。
14. 沈四宝、王军、焦津洪:《国际商法》,对外经济贸易出版社,2002 年。
15. 陈治东:《国际商事仲裁法》,法律出版社,1998 年。
16. 程德均、王生长、康明:《国际惯例和涉外仲裁实务》,中国青年出版社,1993年。
17. 谢石松:《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》,广东人民出版社,1996 年。
18. 韩德培:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年。
19. 朱伟一:《美国证券法判例解析》,中国法制出版社,2002 年。
20. 赵秀文:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,北京大学出版社,2002 年。
21. 王肃元:《论我国纠纷解决制度中的资源配置效率》,《中国法学》1998 年第5 期
22. (日)棚濑孝雄著,王亚新译:《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,中国政法大学出版社1994 年
23. Co 李胜兰、周林彬等:《法律成本与中国经济法制建设》,《中国社会科学》1997 年第4 期
24. 何兵:《纠纷解决机制之重构》,《中外法学》2002 年第1 期
25. 王存:《从证券法看我国的证券仲裁制度》,《法学》1996 年第8 期
26. 刘俊海:《五大途径解决证券民事争议——证券民事责任的法律完善》,《法制日报》2002 年7 月17 日
27. 雷燕、陆军:《分层次建立证券纠纷解决机制》,《今日证券》2002 年08 月3日。
28. 杰罗姆柯恩:《美国证券监管制度中的证券法律责任制度简介》,法律出版社1997 年版
29. Constantine N. Katsoris,SICA: The First Twenty Years, Fordham Urban Law Journal, Spring 1996。
30. Constantine N. Katsoris, The Arbitration of a Public Securities Dispute, 53 Fordham Law Review, 1984.
31. Constantine N. Katsoris, Securities Arbitration After McMahon, 16 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1988。
32. Constantine N. Katsoris, The Securities Arbitrators' Nightmare, 14 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1986。
33. Philip J. Hoblin, Securities Arbitration: Procedures, Strategies, Cases, 1-2, 2d ed. New York Institute of Finance, 1992。
34. David Robbins, Securities Arbitration Procedure Manual, Lexis Law Publishing House.
35. Ian R. McNeal et al., Federal Arbitration Law: Agreements, Awards, and Remedies under Federal Regulation, 1994, 1997.
36. C. Edward Fletcher, Arbitrating Securities Disputes, Practicing Law Institute.
37. Mark J. Astarita, Esq. Overview of the Securities Arbitration Process,www.seclaw.com. Robert W. Hamilton, the law of corporation, West Publishing Company, 1991.
38. Securities Arbitration Procedure Manual
39. SICA pilot program guidelines 1\20\00: securities industry conference on arbitration pilot program for non-SRO-sponsored arbitration alternatives prefatory note
40. Ian R. Macneil et al., Federal Arbitration Law: agreements, awards, and remedies under federal arbitration (1994, Supp. 1997).
41. Rhon E. Jones: How to Handle Securities Cases , from: http://www. Securitieslaw. Com
42. Securities arbitration reform, Report of the Arbitration Policy Task Force to the Board of Governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers, inc. (Jan. 1996)
43. David S. Ruder, Securities Arbitration in the Public Interest: the Role of Punitive damages, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 69, 98(1997).
44. Constantine N. Katsoris: an Arbitrator’s Perspective, Securities arbitration.
45. Paul H. Hagen: New Wineskins for New Wine: the Need to Encourage Fairness in Mandatory Arbitration, Arizona Law Review Fall, 1998.
46. Paul D. Carrington & Paul H. Haagen, Contract and Jurisdiction, S. Ct. Rev. 1996.
47. Wermiel, Justices to mull stock fraud arbitration, Wall St. J., Nov. 15, 1988.
48. Lusardi , Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements in Securities Fraud Settlements, 41 RUTGERS L. REV. (1989).
49. Moulin, Review of Legislative and Regulatory Issues, SECURITIES ARBITRATION UPDATE(1989).
50. Wallace, Securities Arbitration After McMahon, Rodriguez, and the New Rules: Can Investor’s Rights Really Be Protected? 43 VAND. L. REV. (1991).
51. Gregory and Schneider, Securities Arbitration: A Need for Continued Reform, 17 NOVA L. REV. (1993).
52. Hochman, Reasoned Award, 5 SEC. ARB. COMM. (1993)
53. Rakoff, Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction, 96 HARV. L. R. (1983).
54. Pre-dispute Arbitration Agreements Between Brokers and Investors: Should the Extension of Wilko Be Extended? 50 ALB. L. REV. (1987).
55. Kupperman & Freeman, Selected Topics in Securities Arbitration, 65 TULANE L. REV. (1991).
56. Sell, Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of Commercial Arbitration, 35 UCLA L. REV. (1988).
57. Sabina, Awarding Punitive Damages in Securities Industry Arbitration: Working for a Just Result, 27 U. RICH. L. REV. 33(1992).
58. Annotation, Attorney’s Fees or Other Expenses of Litigation as Elements in Measuring Exemplary or Punitive Damages, 30 A. L. R. 3d 1443(1970).
59. Poser, Securities Arbitration and the Expert, SEURITIES ARBITRATION 683 to 689 (D. Robbins ed., 1988).
60. F. Ormsten and N. Arnoff, Sources and Basis of Broker-Dealer Supervisory Responsibility Set Out in the Context of an Expert’s Direct Examination and Cross-Examination, in SECURITIES ARBITRATION 65 (D. Robbins ed., 1992)
61. D. Masucci and R. Clemente, Securities Arbitration at Self-Regulatory Organizations, in SECURITIES ARBITRATION 245, 246 (D. Robbins ed., 1992).
62. Lusardi, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement in Securities Fraud Disputes, 41 RUTGERS L. REV. 541, 570 (1989).
63. The Supreme Court 1986 Term: Leading Cases Federal Statutes and Regulations-Arbitration: Arbitrability of Securities Law and 《反欺诈和合谋法》Claims, 101 HARV. L. REV. 280, 281(1987).
64. Shell, the Role of Public Law in Private Dispute Resolution: Reflections on Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon
65. Malcolm & Segall, the Arbitrability of Claims Arising under §10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act: should Wilko be extended?, 50 ALA. L. REV. 725,726(1986).
66. Users Guide to Arbitration, the New York stock exchange,2001.
67. The arbitrator’s Manual, January 2001, S.I.C.A.
68. N.Y.S.E. Arbitration Rules, 2001
69. S.I.C.A. Arbitration Procedures
70. A.A.A. Securities Arbitration Rules
2. 马其家:《美国证券纠纷仲裁法律制度研究》,博士学位论文,待出版。
3. 沈四宝、卢云华:《证券纠纷仲裁制度方案设计》,上海证券交易所网站,http://www.sse.com.cn/cs/zhs/xxfw/jysjs/sseResearchList/2003-4.html。
4. 沈四宝、王晓川、沈建中:《仲裁是解决证券纠纷的有效方式》,《法制日报》2002 年11 月7 日。
5. 姚俊逸,《中国证券仲裁实践及其新发展》, 中国仲裁网,http://www.china-arbitration.com/3a1.asp?id=1163&name=仲裁研究。
6. 陈真:《证券纠纷争议解决方式之探讨》,《仲裁与法律》2002 年第5 期。
7. 张韶华:《证券争议:两种法律解决途径的比较分析》,《当代经济科学》2004年1 月。
8. 王存,《从<仲裁法>看我国的证券仲裁制度》,《法学》杂志,1996 年8 月。
9. 叶红光,《证券仲裁制度:证券诉讼的替代机制》,《证券市场导报》,2002年5 月号。
10. 范瑜:《当代中国ADR 的发展》, 中国法理网, 来源:http://www.jus.cn/include/shownews.asp?key=ADR&newsid=348。
11. 何震、方菲:《浅议美国证券仲裁制度的特征》,《武汉大学学报》,2003 年7月。
12. 何震、方菲::《关于美国证券仲裁发展的几个重要判例之评析》,《河北法学》,2003 年11 月。
13. 洪源,《证券仲裁若干问题的探讨》, 中国仲裁网, 来源:http://www.china-arbitration.com/3a1.asp?id=791&name=仲裁研究。
14. 沈四宝、王军、焦津洪:《国际商法》,对外经济贸易出版社,2002 年。
15. 陈治东:《国际商事仲裁法》,法律出版社,1998 年。
16. 程德均、王生长、康明:《国际惯例和涉外仲裁实务》,中国青年出版社,1993年。
17. 谢石松:《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》,广东人民出版社,1996 年。
18. 韩德培:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年。
19. 朱伟一:《美国证券法判例解析》,中国法制出版社,2002 年。
20. 赵秀文:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,北京大学出版社,2002 年。
21. 王肃元:《论我国纠纷解决制度中的资源配置效率》,《中国法学》1998 年第5 期
22. (日)棚濑孝雄著,王亚新译:《纠纷的解决与审判制度》,中国政法大学出版社1994 年
23. Co 李胜兰、周林彬等:《法律成本与中国经济法制建设》,《中国社会科学》1997 年第4 期
24. 何兵:《纠纷解决机制之重构》,《中外法学》2002 年第1 期
25. 王存:《从证券法看我国的证券仲裁制度》,《法学》1996 年第8 期
26. 刘俊海:《五大途径解决证券民事争议——证券民事责任的法律完善》,《法制日报》2002 年7 月17 日
27. 雷燕、陆军:《分层次建立证券纠纷解决机制》,《今日证券》2002 年08 月3日。
28. 杰罗姆柯恩:《美国证券监管制度中的证券法律责任制度简介》,法律出版社1997 年版
29. Constantine N. Katsoris,SICA: The First Twenty Years, Fordham Urban Law Journal, Spring 1996。
30. Constantine N. Katsoris, The Arbitration of a Public Securities Dispute, 53 Fordham Law Review, 1984.
31. Constantine N. Katsoris, Securities Arbitration After McMahon, 16 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1988。
32. Constantine N. Katsoris, The Securities Arbitrators' Nightmare, 14 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1986。
33. Philip J. Hoblin, Securities Arbitration: Procedures, Strategies, Cases, 1-2, 2d ed. New York Institute of Finance, 1992。
34. David Robbins, Securities Arbitration Procedure Manual, Lexis Law Publishing House.
35. Ian R. McNeal et al., Federal Arbitration Law: Agreements, Awards, and Remedies under Federal Regulation, 1994, 1997.
36. C. Edward Fletcher, Arbitrating Securities Disputes, Practicing Law Institute.
37. Mark J. Astarita, Esq. Overview of the Securities Arbitration Process,www.seclaw.com. Robert W. Hamilton, the law of corporation, West Publishing Company, 1991.
38. Securities Arbitration Procedure Manual
39. SICA pilot program guidelines 1\20\00: securities industry conference on arbitration pilot program for non-SRO-sponsored arbitration alternatives prefatory note
40. Ian R. Macneil et al., Federal Arbitration Law: agreements, awards, and remedies under federal arbitration (1994, Supp. 1997).
41. Rhon E. Jones: How to Handle Securities Cases , from: http://www. Securitieslaw. Com
42. Securities arbitration reform, Report of the Arbitration Policy Task Force to the Board of Governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers, inc. (Jan. 1996)
43. David S. Ruder, Securities Arbitration in the Public Interest: the Role of Punitive damages, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 69, 98(1997).
44. Constantine N. Katsoris: an Arbitrator’s Perspective, Securities arbitration.
45. Paul H. Hagen: New Wineskins for New Wine: the Need to Encourage Fairness in Mandatory Arbitration, Arizona Law Review Fall, 1998.
46. Paul D. Carrington & Paul H. Haagen, Contract and Jurisdiction, S. Ct. Rev. 1996.
47. Wermiel, Justices to mull stock fraud arbitration, Wall St. J., Nov. 15, 1988.
48. Lusardi , Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements in Securities Fraud Settlements, 41 RUTGERS L. REV. (1989).
49. Moulin, Review of Legislative and Regulatory Issues, SECURITIES ARBITRATION UPDATE(1989).
50. Wallace, Securities Arbitration After McMahon, Rodriguez, and the New Rules: Can Investor’s Rights Really Be Protected? 43 VAND. L. REV. (1991).
51. Gregory and Schneider, Securities Arbitration: A Need for Continued Reform, 17 NOVA L. REV. (1993).
52. Hochman, Reasoned Award, 5 SEC. ARB. COMM. (1993)
53. Rakoff, Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction, 96 HARV. L. R. (1983).
54. Pre-dispute Arbitration Agreements Between Brokers and Investors: Should the Extension of Wilko Be Extended? 50 ALB. L. REV. (1987).
55. Kupperman & Freeman, Selected Topics in Securities Arbitration, 65 TULANE L. REV. (1991).
56. Sell, Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of Commercial Arbitration, 35 UCLA L. REV. (1988).
57. Sabina, Awarding Punitive Damages in Securities Industry Arbitration: Working for a Just Result, 27 U. RICH. L. REV. 33(1992).
58. Annotation, Attorney’s Fees or Other Expenses of Litigation as Elements in Measuring Exemplary or Punitive Damages, 30 A. L. R. 3d 1443(1970).
59. Poser, Securities Arbitration and the Expert, SEURITIES ARBITRATION 683 to 689 (D. Robbins ed., 1988).
60. F. Ormsten and N. Arnoff, Sources and Basis of Broker-Dealer Supervisory Responsibility Set Out in the Context of an Expert’s Direct Examination and Cross-Examination, in SECURITIES ARBITRATION 65 (D. Robbins ed., 1992)
61. D. Masucci and R. Clemente, Securities Arbitration at Self-Regulatory Organizations, in SECURITIES ARBITRATION 245, 246 (D. Robbins ed., 1992).
62. Lusardi, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement in Securities Fraud Disputes, 41 RUTGERS L. REV. 541, 570 (1989).
63. The Supreme Court 1986 Term: Leading Cases Federal Statutes and Regulations-Arbitration: Arbitrability of Securities Law and 《反欺诈和合谋法》Claims, 101 HARV. L. REV. 280, 281(1987).
64. Shell, the Role of Public Law in Private Dispute Resolution: Reflections on Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon
65. Malcolm & Segall, the Arbitrability of Claims Arising under §10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act: should Wilko be extended?, 50 ALA. L. REV. 725,726(1986).
66. Users Guide to Arbitration, the New York stock exchange,2001.
67. The arbitrator’s Manual, January 2001, S.I.C.A.
68. N.Y.S.E. Arbitration Rules, 2001
69. S.I.C.A. Arbitration Procedures
70. A.A.A. Securities Arbitration Rules