Sui Zhong Fa [2020] No. 81
Notice on Issuing the Opinions of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court for the Implementation of Handling Mass Securities Disputes Fairly and Efficiently According to Law (for Trial Implementation)
To all departments of this Court,
The Opinions of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court for the Implementationof Handling Mass Securities Disputes Fairly and Efficiently According to Law (for Trial Implementation) have been discussed and adopted by the Judicial Committee of this Court on May 20, 2020, and are hereby issued to you. Please implement it in light of the real situation. Please promptly report any problem encountered during execution to the Financial Court.
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court
May 22, 2020
The Opinions of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court for the Implementation of Handling Mass Securities Disputes Fairly and Efficiently According to Law (for Trial Implementation)
1.For the purpose of handling mass securities disputes fairly and efficiently according to law, in accordance with the Securities Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Trying Cases of Civil Compensation Arising from False Statement in Securities Market, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China,the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on People's Courts Further Deepening the Reform of Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism, and the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court and China Securities Regulatory Commission on Comprehensively Advancing Establishment of Diversified Resolution Mechanism of Securities and Futures Disputes and other provisions, these Opinions are formulated based on the court practice in Guangzhou.
2. Mass securities disputes refer to securities disputes in which the subject matter of the litigation is the same type and the accumulative number of plaintiffs is more than ten, including securities false statement liability disputes, securities insider trading liability disputes, securities trading market manipulation liability disputes, fraudulent issuance liability disputes, etc.
3. In handling mass securities disputes, mediation shall be focused on and the parties are encouraged to make reconciliation.
Mediation includesdesignated mediation before litigation, entrusted mediation during litigation, and mediation by judges themselves.
In case of designated mediation by this Court, if the parties request the judicial confirmation after reaching a reconciliation agreement, this Court shall accept it according to law.
4. After the case is accepted by this Court, if the parties apply to withdraw the lawsuit or apply for the preparation of mediation documents by this Court after reaching a mediation agreement, the case acceptance fee may be appropriately reduced or exempted.
5. This Court may, upon application of the parties or ex officio, obtain investor securities transaction data and other information related to the case from relevant institutions, and entrust a third-party professional institution to conduct loss verification.
6. If this Court entrusts a third-party professional institution to verify losses, it shall issue a letter of entrustment which shall specify the securities transaction data, loss calculation method and specific entrusted matters according to the specifics of the case.
7. The parties have the right to cross-examine the loss verification opinions issued by third-party professional institutions.
8. This Court may adopt a model judgment mechanism in the trial of mass securities disputes.
Model judgment mechanism refers to a dispute resolution mechanism in which this Court selects a model case from mass securities dispute cases for trial and adjudication with priority, and handles parallel cases with reference to the adjudicative results of the model case.
A model cases refers to the representative case selected from mass securities dispute cases.
Parallel cases refer to other cases that share common facts and the focus oflaw application disputes with the model case in mass securities disputes.
A model judgment refers to the judgment made by trial and adjudication of the model case with priority.
9. This Court may select the model case based on the application of the parties. The parties shall submit a written application for their own case as a model case before hearing.
This Court may select a model case ex officio before hearing if no application from the parties.
The selection of model case shall be submitted toand determined by a meeting of professional judges through discussion after deliberations by the collegiate panel. This Court shall promptly inform the parties of the result of the selection of model case.
10. The adjudicative opinions of the collegiate panel on a model case shall be submitted to a meeting of professional judges for discussion and, if necessary, to the Judicial Committee for discussion and decision.
11. After the model judgment takes effect, this Court shall promptly notify the parties to the parallel cases of the results of the model judgment.
12. After the model judgment takes effect, the parties to the parallel cases do not need to provide additional evidence for the common facts determined by the model judgment. For facts not determined by the model judgment, the parties to the parallel cases shall provide additional evidence.
After the model judgment takes effect,if the plaintiffs to the parallel cases claim to apply the common standards of law application determined by the model judgment directly, this Court may support it; if the defendants to the parallel cases claim to apply directly, but the plaintiffs have objections, this Court shall review and determine.
13. After the model judgment takes effect, the parallel cases shall, in principle, be mediated with reference to the common facts and law application standards determined by the model judgment.
Thepre-trial mediation of parallel cases may adopt a centralized mediation method.
If the parties tothe parallel case refuse pre-trial mediation, the parallel cases shall be tried in time.
Ifthe parallel cases fail to be mediated, they may be tried in a centralized manner according to law, and simplified trial procedures may apply.
14. The judgment documents of the parallel cases may adopt simplified methods such as table-based formats and element-based formulas. The simplified documents shall indicate the reference number of the model judgment of the parallel cases, and specify the compensation items and amount of compensation of the parties. The simplified documents may omit to state the common facts and law application standards determined in the model judgment.
15. After the model case is selected and before the model judgment takes effect, if other parties involved in the mass securities disputes initiate a lawsuit, this Court shall, on the premise of soliciting the willingness of the parties, guide the parties to accept the pre-filing mediation before the lawsuit is filed and registered.
If the parties do not accept the pre-filing mediation but agree to postpone the filing of the case, this Court may register and file relevant information such as the names of the parties applying for the litigation and date, and return the litigation materials.
If the parties do not acceptthe pre-filing mediation and insist on filing the case, this Court shall promptly register and file the case and review whether the case may be included in the scope of parallel cases.
16.The power of interpretation of these Opinions shall be vested in the Judicial Committee of this Court.
17. After the issuance of these Opinions, if there are different provisions in laws, regulations or stipulated by higher courts, such provisions shall prevail.
18. These Opinions shall be implemented on a trial-run basis from the date of issuance.