“股票”一定是“证券”吗？-法搜-中国法律信息搜索网

　　见 SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344 (1943),法院明确提出“票据”（notes）、“债券”（bonds）和“股票”（stocks）都是法律明确提出的“证券”定义中的一种，法院不负责解释这些词语，而只是接受法律规定，或者在某些案件中，结合这些工具本身的特性去分析是否构成“票据”“债券”“股票”。（We do nothing to the words of Acts; we merely accept them. In some cases, proving that the documents were securities, might be done by proving the document itself, which on its face would be a note, a bond, or a share of stock.）
　这个基本原则在Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332.336 (1967)中首先被提出来。同时在SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. Supreme Court of the United States,1946, 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L. Ed. 1244.一案中得到再次确认。
　为了便于读者自行对应，笔者此处注出英文原文，“We reject at the outset any suggestion that the present transaction， rejected by the sale of shares called ’stock’, must be considered a security transaction simply because the statutory definition of a security includes the words ‘any’ ‘stock’ . Rather we adhere to the basic principle that has guided all of the Court’s decisions in this area: searching for the meaning and scope of the word ‘security’ in the Acts, form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality.”
　Securities Regulation－case and material， Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p323.
　　事实上，法官在Forman案中总结的“股票”的这些特征借鉴引用了Tcherepnin一案中的表述，具体可参见Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332.336 (1967)。
　SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. Supreme Court of the United States,1946, 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L. Ed. 1244.
　Securities Regulation－case and material， Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p324.
　Securities Regulation－case and material， Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p343.