|
通过上述两个方面分析，联邦最高法院得出结论，该“票据”是“证券”。
结论：
Reves案之后，“家人相似原则”成了法官们判定某种“票据”是否是“证券”的最重要原则。
法官们通常先假定“票据”为“证券”，然后对照联邦最高法院的“清单。”
如果某个“票据”与这个清单所列的“票据”有极强的“家人相似性”，则反驳了假定，该票据不是证券。
如果某个“票据”与这个清单所列的“票据”不是很相似，法官要继续审议下列动机、销售计划、投资公众合理预期、其他监管方式考量等四个要素，来决定是否将该“票据”增加到法院的清单上。如果可以增加到清单上，则该票据不是证券，反驳了假定；如果不能增加，则该票据是证券。
注释：对不起，无法在这里对应了，技术问题吧。
Supreme Court of the United States, 1990. 494 U.S. 56, 110 S. Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47.
关于农业合作社的概念和法律特征，可以参见笔者文章《美国“合作社”和“非营利性机构”的法律特征分析》，详见笔者个人主页http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article/user/homepage.asp?UserId=54155。
Advertisements for the notes, which appeared in each Co-op newsletter, read in part:” YOUR CO-OP has more than $ 11,000,000 in assets to stand behind your investments. The Investment is not Federal insured but it is …. Safe…..Secure…..and available when you need it. ” See Securities Regulation－case and material， Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p352。.
Petitioners alleged that Arthur Young had intentionally failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles in its audit, specifically with respect to the valuation of one of the Co-Op’s major assets, a gasohol plant.
Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 856 F.2d 52 (1988).
Supreme Court of the United States, 1985, 471 U.S. 681, 105 S.CT. 2297, 85 L.Ed. 2d 692.
“Stock is a special case, explicitly limiting our holding to that sort of instrument. Although we refused finally to rule a out a similar per se rule for notes, we intimated that such a rule would be unjustified.” See Securities Regulation－case and material， Richard W. Jennings, Harold Marsh, Jr, John C. Coffee. Jr, Joel Seligman, Foundation Press, 1998, p354.
|
