公司信用类债券纠纷仲裁机制研究（附英文版）

公司信用类债券纠纷专业性强、主体多元，其妥善解决关乎资本市场秩序和市场主体权益保护。仲裁具有自治、专业、高效、私密等优势，可用于集约化处理债券纠纷，高效落实民事赔偿并有效应对跨境债券纠纷。立足债券纠纷仲裁目前可能面临的适用困境，建议以行业仲裁作为主流模式，多渠道达成多元主体仲裁合意并支持仲裁调查取证，推动调解在仲裁程序中的适用。

债券纠纷仲裁　行业仲裁　仲裁合意　调查取证

随着我国公司信用类债券市场的发展壮大和注册制改革的全面推行，市场准入门槛大幅降低，事后风险防控和法律救济的价值更为凸显。然而在市场发展的同时，债券违约、欺诈发行、虚假陈述等债券纠纷时有发生。债券纠纷专业性较强、涉众广泛、责任主体多元，债券纠纷的妥善处理关乎资本市场秩序和市场主体权益保护。

2021年7月，中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅印发《关于依法从严打击证券违法活动的意见》，提出“健全民事赔偿制度”“开展证券行业仲裁制度试点”。根据《中国国际商事仲裁年度报告（2020—2021）》，2020年全国仲裁委员会处理金融类案件约22.6万件，占案件总数的56.32%；金融类案件标的额2048亿元，占案件标的总额的28.5%。债券纠纷多为债券回购交易合同纠纷（中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，2021）。2021年10月，证监会和司法部发布《关于依法开展证券期货行业仲裁试点的意见》（以下简称《仲裁试点意见》），具体明确仲裁试点的总体要求、证券期货仲裁院（中心）设立及仲裁范围、仲裁员选聘机制、与调解和诉讼的衔接等。2021年11月，深圳市率先成立中国（深圳）证券仲裁中心，落实证券仲裁从试点到推广的发展模式。

债券纠纷仲裁的制度优势

诉讼和仲裁同为法定的争议解决方式。与体现国家公权力的诉讼相比，仲裁更能体现市场自治，在争议解决程序上充分尊重当事人的意愿，这也正好契合债券市场注册制的市场化、法治化改革理念。具体而言，与诉讼相比，仲裁在解决债券纠纷上主要有以下比较优势。

第一，自治性。债券纠纷当事人可以自主选择仲裁机构、仲裁庭组成及仲裁程序。对仲裁机构的选择不受诉讼中有关地域管辖的约束，但是国内案件不能提交境外仲裁机构仲裁。当事人可将争议提交声誉良好、经验丰富的仲裁机构仲裁，同时选择其信任的仲裁员，由此增强当事人自觉履行裁决的意愿。

第二，时效性。与我国诉讼的“四级法院两审终审制”相比，仲裁实行一裁终局，裁决作出后，当事人不得就同一纠纷提交仲裁或诉讼，除非裁决被法院撤销或不予执行，由此确保债券投资者获得及时、有效的赔偿。

第三，专业性。目前我国通过设立金融法院、金融法庭提升争议解决的专业性。与常设性的法官团队不同，仲裁员群体可以是有债券领域实践经验或学术研究成果的仲裁员、律师、曾任法官、专家学者等，通过多方共同参与，可进一步提升争议解决的专业性。

第四，私密性。仲裁原则上不公开进行。公司信用类债券争议解决过程中可能涉及公司商业秘密，如果公开发生争议的事实，无论公司最终胜诉与否，均会对公司声誉造成一定影响，而仲裁则为当事人提供了私密解决争议的途径。

第五，可强制执行。仲裁虽赋予当事人更多的自主权，但其裁决仍具有强制执行力。人民法院为仲裁裁决的执行提供支持，如一方未履行，另一方可向法院申请执行。

债券纠纷仲裁的实践定位及价值体现

根据《仲裁试点意见》，证券期货合同纠纷和其他财产权益纠纷符合仲裁法规定的，可依法适用仲裁方式解决。具体到债券上，主要包括债券发行人到期未兑付本息的违约纠纷，因发行人虚假陈述、欺诈发行等侵权行为引发的民事赔偿纠纷以及其他财产性纠纷。推动仲裁在债券纠纷解决中的适用，并非意在替代司法救济，而是凸显仲裁和诉讼的差异化制度优势，即满足投资者的多元化纠纷解决诉求，同时以各机制所长合力维护投资者的合法权益。仲裁在债券纠纷解决实践中的价值主要体现在以下方面。

（一）灵活高效解决纠纷，助力落实民事赔偿责任

债券违法行为可能面临民事、行政、刑事责任，其中行政处罚和刑事责任的制度价值在于维护金融监管秩序，严厉打击债券违法犯罪行为，而民事赔偿的落实才能真正弥补投资者的损失。如债券纠纷为单纯的违约纠纷，责任主体仅需承担民事赔偿责任。但如果涉及虚假陈述、欺诈发行等违法行为，责任主体可能同时面临刑事、行政财产性责任以及民事赔偿责任。此时，民事责任优先是责任承担的基本原则，即在责任人资产有限时，优先执行民事财产性责任1。民事赔偿优先的实质在于执行优先。然而实践中，由于民事赔偿诉讼审理及执行相对滞后、不同性质财产性责任认定部门在程序上协调衔接不足，民事赔偿优先的落实情况并不理想（陈洁，2017）。

研究推动以仲裁解决债券纠纷，既可以借助仲裁机制的灵活高效加快责任认定，又可分担法院的案件处理压力。充分发挥仲裁在程序上的灵活性，赋予当事人在争议解决机构、地点、人员选择上的自主权，可提升争议解决的有效性；以一裁终局替代“四级法院两审终审制”，提升争议解决效率，满足债券投资者对于高效获取民事赔偿的迫切需求；动员具有相关专业背景和实践经验的多元化群体参与争议解决，从行业、市场视角助力法律问题的妥善处理。由此助力民事赔偿机制的完善和落实。

（二）破除地域管辖限制，专业集约处理争议

债券纠纷专业性较强，违法行为认定及责任分配对于争议解决人员的专业知识、相关业务实践以及案件处理经验要求较高，基于此，各地陆续设立金融法院、金融法庭专门审理金融类纠纷。深圳市在原有仲裁委员会之外试点设立中国（深圳）证券仲裁中心，同样体现了凝聚专业力量、集中解决证券纠纷的理念。然而，诉讼需满足地域管辖的要求，根据最高人民法院印发的《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》，债券纠纷涉及发行人的，原则上由发行人住所地有管辖权的法院管辖，除非债券违约案件当事人另有约定。此处的约定需符合民事诉讼法有关协议管辖的要求，即当事人仅能选择与争议有实际联系的地点的法院。

仲裁管辖既然无“实际联系的要求”，那么当事人就可以自由选择境内的仲裁委员会进行仲裁，如为涉外债券纠纷，还可提交境外仲裁机构。仲裁规则的科学性、仲裁员团队的专业性是仲裁机构竞争力的重要体现。预计未来大部分案件将集中于北京、上海、深圳等地声誉良好、经验丰富的仲裁机构来仲裁，既有利于案件得到专业、公正的处理，同时案件的相对集中也可在一定程度上提升仲裁裁决的一致性。

（三）妥善应对跨境纠纷，提升争议解决话语权

随着债券市场对外开放的深入，获准进入境内债券市场的投资者类型增多，投资范围逐步扩大，投资便利性不断提升。在境外投资者持有公司信用类债券规模日益扩大的同时，跨境债券纠纷也将呈现增长趋势。

诉讼管辖权原则上以一国领土为限进行界定。与诉讼相比，仲裁在解决跨境纠纷上具有显著优势。第一，提升争议解决的中立性和公信力。对于涉及境外投资者的跨境债券纠纷，由任何一国的司法机关解决都可能面临对其中立性的质疑，而仲裁是民间性的争议解决机制，在《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》2的广泛影响下，司法机关秉持司法克制原则，除了违反一国公共政策等重大事由，通常以特定程序性事项为由拒绝承认和执行仲裁裁决，不会干涉仲裁对实体性事项的判定，由此确保仲裁的独立性。第二，提升我国在争议解决领域的话语权。目前我国以中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（以下简称“贸仲委”）为代表的诸多仲裁机构均有解决跨境争议的丰富经验。加强对于证券仲裁机制的政策支持，对标国际实践完善仲裁规则，可有力吸引相关主体将涉外债券纠纷提交我国仲裁机构进行仲裁。尤其是贸仲委、中国香港国际仲裁中心的国际化程度较高，在亚太地区乃至全球的认可度均较高，可以将其作为扩大跨境纠纷仲裁管辖权的突破口。国内债券发行人还可争取以我国法律作为争议解决的准据法，推动我国法律在跨境纠纷中的应用，提升我国在跨境纠纷解决中的话语权。

债券纠纷仲裁可能面临的困境

仲裁的合意属性既赋予当事人自主选择权，同时也决定了仲裁庭管辖权的有限性。如何将债券纠纷多元主体纳入仲裁协议是推动仲裁适用的前提。同时，仲裁庭没有以国家公权力为后盾的司法调查权，在债券侵权行为认定上也会面临困境。

（一）仲裁的合意属性难以应对债券纠纷多元主体特性

仲裁庭管辖权源于当事人之间的合意，通常需要在基础合同中约定设置仲裁条款或另行签署仲裁协议。仲裁庭仅有权处理已签署仲裁协议的当事方一致同意提交仲裁的事项。债券纠纷涉众广泛、责任主体多元，将多方主体纳入仲裁管辖是集约高效解决争议的关键。然而，债券纠纷仲裁在实践中可能面临以下障碍：如争议发生前已在基础合同中约定仲裁条款，由于仲裁协议的相对性与分散性，如何实现诸多投资者仲裁案件的合并审理问题，以及基础合同中约定的仲裁条款是否涵盖侵权纠纷；如争议发生时无可援用的仲裁条款，如何在多方当事人情绪对立时达成仲裁协议；如侵权纠纷中中介机构等责任主体未全部加入仲裁协议，如何实现投资者权益的充分救济等。

受托管理人难以在仲裁中发挥集体行权职能。根据证券法第九十二条，“债券发行人未能按期兑付债券本息的，债券受托管理人可以接受全部或者部分债券持有人的委托，以自己名义代表债券持有人提起、参加民事诉讼或者清算程序”。根据《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》第五点的规定，“债券发行人不能如约偿付债券本息或者出现债券募集文件约定的违约情形时，受托管理人根据债券募集文件、债券受托管理协议的约定或者债券持有人会议决议的授权，以自己的名义代表债券持有人提起、参加民事诉讼，或者申请发行人破产重整、破产清算的，人民法院应当依法予以受理。”债券受托管理人制度设计的初衷即在于解决债券持有人数量众多、难以行权的问题，然而在理论层面上，受托管理人制度难以契合代理、代表人、信托等制度框架，唯一可能的解释视角是法定诉讼担当，不过受托管理人的诉讼担当是有条件的，即需要债券持有人的授权，以避免直接剥夺债券持有人的诉讼权利（王洋，2021）。至于仲裁，法律并未规定受托管理人可代表债券持有人提起仲裁，受托管理人在仲裁中缺失类似法定诉讼担当的理论根基，而且基于仲裁的合意属性，受托管理人并非仲裁协议的当事人，发行人可以此为由提出管辖权异议。同时，受托管理人代为起诉仅限于债券违约案件，法律未授权其代为提起侵权之诉。因此，受托管理人难以协助众多投资者在仲裁中集体行权。

（二）债券侵权纠纷具有可仲裁性，但面临调查取证困境

一国可提交仲裁的争议范围本质上是司法对仲裁的管辖权让渡，其中涉及对一国公共政策的考量。根据我国仲裁法第二条和第三条的规定，平等主体的公民、法人和其他组织之间发生的合同纠纷和其他财产权益纠纷可以仲裁，但是婚姻、收养、监护、扶养、继承纠纷以及依法应当由行政机关处理的行政争议不能仲裁。就债券侵权纠纷本身属性而言，其为因虚假陈述、欺诈发行等侵权行为引发的财产权益类纠纷，因而可提交仲裁。从可仲裁性理论上看，一国出于公共政策考量对仲裁予以何种授权，关键在于仲裁是否能够充分弥补投资者利益并维护资本市场秩序（王克玉，2015）。

目前在证券仲裁试点中，对仲裁庭认定侵权行为的权限持保留态度，设定行政和司法前置程序3，其原因不在于债券侵权纠纷本身的可仲裁性，而是取消前置程序后将引发举证、侵权行为认定及监管协调等诸多问题。以虚假陈述为例，可能涉及投资者举证、虚假陈述行为的“重大性”标准、因果关系认定、民事赔偿与行政监管的协调等问题（丁宇翔，2021）。

仲裁通常奉行“谁主张，谁举证”的原则，同时赋予仲裁庭自行调查取证的权力。债券侵权纠纷举证及责任认定较为复杂，实践中，行政处罚决定书和刑事裁判文书是当事人证明侵权行为人行为违法性的重要证据，同时也是认定虚假陈述等行为“重大性”的直接依据4。如无此前置程序，当事人在举证证明要件事实时将处于被动。根据仲裁法第四十三条的规定，“仲裁庭认为有必要收集的证据，可以自行收集。”然而仲裁是以当事人合意为基础的纠纷解决机制，仲裁庭没有以国家公权力为后盾的司法调查权，仲裁庭能否成功取证取决于保有证据的相关单位和个人是否配合。实践中，取证人员常常遭遇“冷门”，因而对于主动调取证据通常持消极态度（王海霞，2017）。因此，即便肯定仲裁庭对债券侵权案件的管辖权，其在调查取证上仍面临困境。

债券纠纷仲裁机制的推进路径及完善建议

借助证券仲裁试点的发展契机，依托仲裁制度特性以及仲裁解决债券纠纷的实践价值，笔者认为可推动构建以行业仲裁为主的仲裁模式，多渠道达成当事人仲裁合意，完善仲裁庭调查取证、调解程序等方面的相关规则。

（一）构建行业仲裁主流模式，以规则优势集聚案件

目前证券仲裁试点以行业仲裁机制的方式推进，由证券交易所等自律组织与仲裁委员会合作共建证券仲裁中心，加大自律组织对仲裁的支持力度。行业仲裁在解决债券纠纷上具有显著优势。第一，将债券纠纷仲裁纳入证券市场统一监管体系。行业仲裁可实现争议解决与自律监管的结合，使仲裁裁决更契合债券监管目标（王克玉，2015）。同时，争议解决除了可以依法公正平息纠纷，还可为法制和监管政策完善提供重要依据。第二，行业仲裁便于统一仲裁裁量尺度。与各地现有较为分散的仲裁机构相比，由专攻证券行业纠纷的仲裁机构集中解决争议，可以有效提升在相同或类似问题上仲裁裁决的一致性（王克玉，2015）。第三，自律组织会员章程是仲裁条款的优良载体。会员章程体现会员之间契约性的权利义务关系，可以事先纳入仲裁条款，便于会员在争议发生后直接援用5。

即便如此，笔者认为，行业仲裁可作为债券纠纷仲裁的优选模式予以推广，但不应将其设定为唯一模式。自治性是仲裁的特性所在，虽然行业仲裁在推动监管统一、便利调查取证等方面存在诸多优势，但如将由自律组织甚至是主管部门推动设立的行业仲裁设定为唯一路径，将模糊仲裁与司法的界限，有损多元化纠纷解决机制的制度价值。就仲裁机制本身而言，案件的集聚本就可通过提升规则的竞争优势得以实现，无需也不应进行强制规定。对于仅涉及民事财产性利益的交易合同纠纷、违约纠纷，行业仲裁中心及各地的仲裁委员会均可受理。至于债券侵权纠纷，因其不仅损害投资者的财产权益，同时有违债券市场正常运行秩序，为确保民事赔偿认定与国家公权力机关监管的一致性，行业仲裁中心可推动完善其仲裁规则，包括强化与司法机关在调查取证、裁决执行等方面的程序衔接，以规则优势吸引当事人将侵权纠纷提交行业仲裁中心。

（二）多渠道达成仲裁合意，集约化处理债券纠纷

实现债券纠纷多元主体的仲裁合意，最直接的解决方式是在募集说明书中事先列明仲裁条款。募集说明书是债券发行信息披露的重要文件，为投资者认购债券提供依据，并承载着发行人与投资者的权利义务关系。然而，募集说明书本身为要约邀请，经投资者认购及发行人承诺，募集说明书所承载的包括争议解决条款在内的内容即成为合同文本（曹明哲，2018），由此实现多方主体间提交仲裁的合意，且不同投资者与多元责任主体间的仲裁协议均为募集说明书中统一的标准文本。

根据公司信用类债券募集说明书的编制要求，发行人需明确争议解决条款。然而在募集说明书体例中，在争议解决条款前通常列明违约情形，因此其后的争议解决条款一般理解为是专门针对违约纠纷设置的条款。为使仲裁条款有效覆盖侵权纠纷，一方面，需在募集说明书中明确与此次发行相关的违约纠纷和侵权纠纷均可提交仲裁；另一方面，侵权纠纷的责任主体除了包括发行人，还可能包括控股股东、实际控制人、主承销商、证券服务机构等，如缺乏有效的仲裁协议，则仲裁庭无权要求其担责。此类主体可在募集说明书中承诺，如因本次发行损害投资者利益，同样适用募集说明书中的仲裁条款。如未通过募集说明书事先确定仲裁条款，投资者也可在纠纷发生后与相关责任主体协商达成仲裁协议，仲裁的私密特性是吸引责任方选择仲裁的重要因素。

在行业仲裁机制下，可考虑在自律组织会员章程中设置投资者可选择的仲裁模式。参照纽约证券交易所规则600（A）、规则600，对于涉及自律组织会员的争议，如为自律组织会员之间的争议，应提交行业仲裁；如为自律组织会员与投资者之间的争议，投资者有权选择是否提交行业仲裁，如投资者选择仲裁，自律组织会员应予以配合。此模式即通过自律组织会员章程事先载入会员关于提交仲裁的意思表示，变通之处在于，经投资者申请仲裁即视为自律组织会员与投资者之间达成仲裁合意，而不再拘泥于书面的仲裁协议。

在仲裁程序方面，同批次发行债券的投资者可合并提出仲裁申请，或在多个投资者分别提交仲裁后，由仲裁委员会决定对多个案件合并仲裁，由此实现案件集约化处理6。考虑到投资者一方人数众多且地域分布广泛，可从投资者中推选代表人集体行权，同时可采用互联网开庭的模式7。

（三）多方支持仲裁调查取证，高效落实民事赔偿

以仲裁方式高效解决民事纠纷，需通过相关机制弥补当事人举证和仲裁庭调查取证的不足。目前，我国已在多个文件中明确取消证券侵权民事诉讼中的行政处罚或刑事诉讼前置程序8。如前文所述，仲裁庭理应有权对债券虚假陈述、欺诈发行等行为进行认定并确定损失赔偿数额，如希望取消仲裁前置程序，关键还在于如何解决举证取证难题。第一，由法院为仲裁庭和律师调查取证提供支持。如仲裁庭认为有必要主动收集相关证据，可以申请法院予以协助。与此相呼应，2021年发布的《中华人民共和国仲裁法（修订）（征求意见稿）》保留了仲裁庭自行调查取证的权力，但新增了“必要时可以请求人民法院协助”的规定。同时，经仲裁程序当事人申请，可由法院签发律师调查令，律师持调查令赴交易所、债券登记结算机构调取相关证据，缓解投资者的举证压力（丁宇翔，2021）。第二，由自律组织为仲裁庭提供调查取证等支持。自律组织作为最接近市场的一线监管者，可以协助仲裁机构对债券纠纷进行调查取证，同时可根据其市场监管经验为争议案件的妥善解决提供专业性支持。第三，由专业机构协助进行损失认定。类比《最高人民法院关于证券纠纷代表人诉讼若干问题的规定》第二十四条，“人民法院可以依当事人的申请，委托双方认可或者随机抽取的专业机构对投资损失数额、证券侵权行为以外其他风险因素导致的损失扣除比例等进行核定。当事人虽未申请但案件审理确有需要的，人民法院可以通过随机抽取的方式委托专业机构对有关事项进行核定。”仲裁机构同样可采用专业机构参与损失认定的做法，尤其是依托自律组织的行业仲裁中心，还可咨询自律组织专家的专业意见。

在确保民事赔偿责任优先方面，可考虑建立暂缓入库和财政回拨制度。即使取消行政和司法前置程序，由于仲裁程序与行政、司法程序相互独立，仍可能存在仲裁裁决确定时行政处罚、刑事裁判已执行完毕，或者行政处罚、刑事裁判已生效但尚未执行，此时则需建立行政罚款、刑事罚金财政回拨或暂缓入库制度（陈洁，2017），以确保民事赔偿的有效执行。

（四）完善调解与仲裁的程序衔接

调解被誉为“东方瑰宝”，蕴含“以和为贵”的争议解决理念。调解既可作为独立的争议解决程序，也可作为仲裁程序的一部分。推动调解在仲裁程序中的适用，可以大幅节约债券争议解决的时间成本，尽可能达成各方当事人均满意的解决方案。

在调解人员组成上，宜突破我国由仲裁庭成员直接调解的传统做法，另行委托自律组织调解中心或证券领域权威专家进行调解，从而避免当事人在调解中的妥协或讨价还价对调解不成时继续进行的仲裁程序产生不利影响，消除当事人对适用调解的顾虑。在仲裁和调解程序衔接上，可借鉴新加坡“仲裁—调解—仲裁”模式的经验，即提交调解后中止仲裁程序，如果调解成功，则结束仲裁程序；如果调解失败或未能完全解决争议，则恢复仲裁程序9。为确保调解协议的有效执行，在达成调解协议后，仲裁庭应当制作调解书或者根据协议结果制作裁决书。

注：

1．详见证券法第二百二十条的规定，“违反本法规定，应当承担民事赔偿责任和缴纳罚款、罚金、违法所得，违法行为人的财产不足以支付的，优先用于承担民事赔偿责任。”

2．1958年，联合国国际商事仲裁会议上审议通过该公约，并于1959年6月7日起正式生效。

3．《关于〈依法开展证券期货行业仲裁试点的意见〉的起草说明》提出“基于仲裁机构确认违法行为的权限不足，对证券期货民事赔偿纠纷的仲裁设定了行政前置和司法前置程序”。

4．参见《最高人民法院关于证券纠纷代表人诉讼若干问题的规定》第五条，《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》第八十五条。

5．参见《仲裁试点意见》第六条。

6．深圳国际仲裁院、北京仲裁委员会等机构的仲裁规则均有关于多份合同合并申请、合并仲裁的相关规定。

7．如深圳国际仲裁院专门制定了《网络仲裁规则》，北京仲裁委员会的最新规则中明确开庭方式包括网上开庭。

8．如《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》明确，欺诈发行、虚假陈述行为人以债券持有人、债券投资者主张的欺诈发行、虚假陈述行为未经有关机关行政处罚或者生效刑事裁判文书认定为由请求不予受理或者驳回起诉的，人民法院不予支持。《关于依法从严打击证券违法活动的意见》提出“健全民事赔偿制度”“取消民事赔偿诉讼前置程序”。

9．参见以下网址http://simc.com.sg/v2/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SIAC-SIMC-AMA-Protocol.pdf。

参考文献

[1]曹明哲．债券募集说明书的性质及其司法效应[J]．债券，2018（11）：53-57．

[2]陈洁．证券民事赔偿责任优先原则的实现机制[J]．证券市场导报，2017（6）：58，60-62．

[3]丁宇翔．证券虚假陈述前置程序取消的辐散效应及其处理[J]．财经法学，2021（5）：31-46．

[4]何海锋，陈豪鑫．新虚假陈述若干规定在债券虚假陈述纠纷中的适用探讨[J]．债券，2022（3）：24-27．

[5]王海霞．仲裁庭调查取证权问题研究[EB/OL]．（2017-12-07）[2022-01-10]．https：//www.sohu.com/a/209112112_100017582．

[6]王克玉．确立与完善我国证券侵权仲裁机制的路径分析——以美国证券仲裁机制的发展为视角[J]．法学论坛，2015（2）：109-114．

[7]王洋．债券受托管理人的诉讼地位困境及新《证券法》的应对——以太合汇公司诉众富公司案为视角[J]．证券法苑，2020（2）．

[8]中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会．中国国际商事仲裁年度报告（2020-2021）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2021：5-6，96．

◇ 本文原载《债券》2022年5月刊

◇ 作者：中央结算公司博士后科研工作站　董暖

◇ 责任编辑：魏海瑞　印颖

AResearchontheArbitrationMechanismofCorporateCreditBondDisputes

DongNuan

Abstract

Thedisputesovercorporatecreditbondsinvolveahighlevelofprofessionalismandawidevarietyofparties．Theirproperresolutionisessentialtomaintainingthecapitalmarketorderandprotectingmarketparticipants’rightsandinterests．Arbitrationhastheadvantagesofautonomy，professionalism，efficiencyandprivacy．Itcanbeusedforintensivehandlingofbond-relateddisputes，efficientimplementationofcivilcompensation，andeffectiveresponsetocross-borderdisputesoverbonds．Giventhepossibledifficultiesintheapplicationofbonddisputearbitration，itissuggestedtotakesectoralarbitrationasthemainstreammode，reachamulti-partyarbitrationconsensusthroughmultiplechannels，supportarbitrationinvestigationandevidencecollection，andpromotetheapplicationofmediationinarbitrationprocedures．

Keywords

Bonddisputearbitration，sectoralarbitration，arbitrationagreement，investigationandevidencecollection

WiththecorporatecreditbondmarketexpandinginChinaandtheregistration-basedissuancereformimplementedacrosstheboard，themarketaccessthresholdhasbeensignificantlylowered，furtherunderliningthevalueofpost-eventriskcontrolandlegalremedies．Inthecourseofmarketdevelopment，however，bonddisputessuchasbonddefaults，fraudulentissuanceandmisrepresentationhaveoccurredfromtimetotime．Thebonddisputesinvolveahighlevelofprofessionalism，abroadrangeofstakeholdersandawidevarietyofresponsibleparties．Theproperresolutionofbonddisputesisessentialtomaintainingthecapitalmarketorderandprotectingmarketparticipants’rightsandinterests．

InJuly2021，theGeneralOfficeoftheCPCCentralCommitteeandtheGeneralOfficeoftheStateCouncilissuedtheOpinionsonStrictlyCrackingDownonIllegalSecuritiesActivitiesinAccordancewiththeLaw，callingfor“improvingthecivilcompensationsystem”and“carryingoutapilotprogramonsecuritiessectoralarbitrationsystem”．AccordingtotheAnnualReportonInternationalCommercialArbitrationinChina（2020-2021），China’sarbitrationcommissionshandledabout226，000financialcasesin2020，accountingfor56.32%ofthetotalnumberofcases；thesubjectmattersoffinancialcasesamountedtoRMB204.8billion，accountingfor28.5%ofthetotal．Bonddisputesaremostlycontractualdisputesoverbondrepurchasetransactions（CIETAC，2021）．InOctober2021，ChinaSecuritiesRegulatoryCommission（CSRC）andtheMinistryofJustice（MOJ）issuedtheOpinionsonConductingthePilotProgramonArbitrationintheSecuritiesandFuturesIndustryinAccordancewiththeLaw（the“PilotArbitrationOpinions”），settingforththeoverallrequirementsforpilotarbitration，theestablishmentofasecuritiesandfuturesarbitrationcourt（center）andthescopeofarbitration，thearbitratorselectionandappointmentmechanismandthecoordinationwithmediationandlitigation．InNovember2021，ShenzhentooktheleadinestablishingtheChina（Shenzhen）SecuritiesArbitrationCenter，amovetoscaleupthepilotsecuritiesarbitration．

InstitutionalAdvantagesofBondDisputeArbitration

Litigationandarbitrationarebothstatutorywaysofdisputeresolution．Comparedwithlitigationthatembodiesthepublicpowerofthestate，arbitrationcanbetterunleashmarketautonomyandfullyrespectthewishesofthepartiesinthedisputeresolutionprocess．Italsofitsthemarket-oriented，law-basedreformphilosophyforaregistration-basedbondissuancesystem．Specifically，relativetolitigation，arbitrationhasthefollowingadvantagesinresolvingbonddisputes．

First，autonomy．Thepartiestoabonddisputemaychoosethearbitralbody，membersofarbitraltribunalandarbitrationproceduresattheirdiscretion．Thearbitralbodyselectionisnotsubjecttoterritorialjurisdictioninlitigation，butdomesticcasescannotbereferredtooverseasarbitralbodiesforarbitration．Thepartiesmaysubmitthedisputetoareputableandexperiencedarbitralbodyforarbitrationandchoosethearbitratorstheytrust，thusenhancingtheparties’willingnesstoexecutetheaward．

Second，timeliness．ComparedwithChina’sfour-levelcourtsystemwiththesecondinstancebeingfinal，arbitrationadoptsthemodeofone-instancearbitrationresultinginfinalaward．Aftertheawardismade，thepartiesshallnotsubmitthesamedisputeforrepeatarbitrationorlitigation，unlesstheawardisrevokedornotenforcedbythecourt，thusensuringthatthebondinvestorsreceivetimelyandeffectivecompensation．

Third，professionalism．Atpresent，Chinahasimprovedtheprofessionalismofdisputeresolutionthroughtheestablishmentoffinancialcourtsandfinancialtribunals．Differentfromthepermanentteamofjudges，thegroupofarbitratorsmayincludearbitrators，lawyers，formerjudges，expertsandscholarswithpracticalexperienceoracademicachievementsinthebondfield．Throughmulti-partyparticipation，theprofessionalismofdisputeresolutioncanbefurtherenhanced．

Fourth，privacy．Arbitrationshallbeconductedinprivateinprinciple．Thedisputeresolutionprocessforcorporatecreditbondsmayinvolvecommercialsecretsofacorporation．Ifthefactsindisputearemadepublic，whetherthecorporationwinsornot，itsreputationwillbeharmedtoacertainextent．Arbitrationprovidesthepartieswithaprivatewaytoresolvethedispute．

Fifth，enforceability．Althougharbitrationgivesthepartiesmoreautonomy，itsawardisstillenforceable．Thepeople’scourtprovidessupportfortheenforcementofarbitralawards．Ifonepartyfailstoexecutetheaward，theotherpartymayapplytothecourtforenforcement．

ThePracticalOrientationandValueEmbodimentofBondDisputeArbitration

AccordingtothePilotArbitrationOpinions，thesecuritiesandfuturescontractdisputesandotherdisputesoverpropertyrightsthatarecoveredbytheArbitrationLawmaybesettledthrougharbitrationinaccordancewiththelaw．Whenitcomestobonds，disputesmainlyinvolvebondissuers’defaultsonprincipalandinterestpaymentsatmaturity，civilcompensationarisingfromtortssuchasissuer’smisrepresentationorfraudulentissuanceandotherproperty-relateddisputes．Promotingtheapplicationofarbitrationintheresolutionofbonddisputesisnotintendedtoreplacejudicialremedies，buttohighlightthedifferentiatedinstitutionaladvantagesofarbitrationandlitigation，thatis，tomeetinvestors’diversedemandfordisputeresolutionwhilesafeguardingthelegitimaterightsandinterestsofinvestorswiththecombinedstrengthsofvariousmechanisms．Arbitrationembodiesitsvalueinbonddisputeresolutionmainlyinthefollowingaspects．

i．Flexibleandefficientresolutionofdisputestohelpenforcecivilcompensation

Bondillegalitiesmayincurcivil，administrativeandcriminalliabilities．Administrativepenaltiesandcriminalliabilitieshavetheirinstitutionalvalueinsafeguardingthefinancialsupervisoryorderandcrackingharddownonbond-relatedoffenses，whilecivilcompensation，whenenforced，cantrulymakeupforthelossesofinvestors．Ifabonddisputeissimplyoverdefault，theresponsiblepartiesareonlyliabletopaycivilcompensation．Ifmisrepresentation，fraudulentissuanceandotherillegalactsareinvolved，however，theresponsiblepartiesmayfacecriminalliability，administrativeproperty-relatedliabilityandcivilcompensationliabilitytogether．Insuchcircumstances，thebasicprincipleisprioritizingcivilliability，thatis，whentheassetsoftheresponsiblepersonarelimited，thecivilproperty-relatedliabilityshouldbeenforcedfirst1．Thepriorityofcivilcompensationessentiallyliesinthepriorityofenforcement．Inpractice，however，thepriorityofcivilcompensationisnotsatisfactorilyimplementedduetotherelativelaginthecivilcompensationtrialandenforcementlitigationandthelackofproceduralcoordinationbetweendepartmentsdeterminingtheproperty-relatedliabilitiesofdifferentnatures（ChenJie，2017）．

Studyingandpromotingthearbitration-basedresolutionofbonddisputescannotonlyacceleratethedeterminationofliabilitieswithaflexibleandefficientarbitrationmechanism，butalsosharetheworkloadofcourts．Thedisputeresolutionwillbecomemoreeffectivebyfullyharnessingtheproceduralflexibilityofarbitrationandgivingthepartiestheautonomyinchoosingthedisputeresolutionbody，venueandarbitrators．Thedisputeresolutionwillbemoreefficientbyreplacingthe“fourlevelsofcourtswiththesecondinstancebeingfinal”mechanismwith“one-instancearbitrationresultinginfinalaward”，thusmeetingbondinvestors’urgentneedsforquickcivilcompensation．Adiversegroupwithrelevantprofessionalbackgroundandpracticalexperienceshouldbeencouragedtoparticipateindisputeresolution，thushelpingproperlytacklelegalissuesfromtheperspectiveofthesectorandmarket．Thiswillhelpimproveandimplementthecivilcompensationmechanism．

ii．Extendingbeyondterritorialjurisdictionsforprofessional，centralhandlingofdisputes

Bonddisputesrequireahighlevelofprofessionalism．Theidentificationofillegalactsandallocationofliabilitiesrequireahighlevelofexpertise，businesspracticesandcasehandlingexperienceofdisputeresolutionpersonnel．Therefore，financialcourtsandfinancialtribunalshavebeensetupthroughoutthecountrytoheardisputesregardingfinancialservices．ShenzhenhassetuptheChina（Shenzhen）SecuritiesArbitrationCenteronapilotbasisapartfromtheexistingarbitrationcommission，manifestingthephilosophyofpoolingprofessionalstrengthstocentrallyresolvesecuritiesdisputes．However，litigationissubjecttoterritorialjurisdiction．AccordingtotheMinutesofNationalSymposiumonCourtTrialofBondDisputesissuedbytheSupremePeople’sCourt，ifabonddisputeinvolvestheissuer，thecaseshouldinprinciplebeunderthejurisdictionofthecourtwheretheissuerisdomiciled，unlessotherwiseagreedbythepartiesinthebonddefaultcase．TheagreementheremustconformtotherequirementsoftheCivilProcedureLawregardingconsensualjurisdiction，i.e．thepartiescanonlychoosethecourtintheplacethatisactuallyconnectedwiththedispute．

Sincethereisno“requirementofactualconnection”inthearbitraljurisdiction，thepartiescanfreelychooseadomesticarbitrationcommissionor，ifthebonddisputeinvolvesaforeignparty，referthedisputetoanoverseasarbitralbody．Thescientificityofarbitrationrulesandtheprofessionalismofthearbitratorteamrepresentasharpcompetitiveedgeofarbitralbodies．ItisexpectedthatmostofthecaseswillbearbitratedbyreputableandexperiencedarbitralbodiesinBeijing，Shanghai，Shenzhen，etc．inthefuture．Itwillnotonlyensureprofessionalandfairhandlingofthecases，butalsoimprovetheconsistencyofarbitrationawardstoacertainextentascasesarehandledmorecentrallythanbefore．

iii．Properlyhandlingcross-borderdisputesandgainingabiggersayindisputeresolution

WithChina’sbondmarketopeningwidertotheoutsideworld，abroadervarietyofinvestorsareallowedtoenterthedomesticbondmarketforawiderrangeofinvestmentactivities．Foreigninvestmentsareincreasinglyfacilitated．WhileforeigninvestorshaveagrowingexposuretocorporatecreditbondsinChina，cross-borderbonddisputeswillalsoshowanupwardtrend．

Thejurisdictioninalitigationcaseisinprinciplelimitedtotheterritoryofastate．Comparedwithlitigation，arbitrationhasasignificantadvantageinaddressingcross-borderdisputes．First，theneutralityandcredibilityofdisputeresolutionisenhanced．Forcross-borderbonddisputesinvolvingforeigninvestors，thejudicialauthorityofanycountrymayfacedoubtsaboutitsneutralityindisputeresolution．Incontrast，arbitrationisaprivate-sectordisputeresolutionmechanism．UndertheextensiveinfluenceoftheConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards2，thejudicialauthoritiesupholdtheprincipleofjudicialrestraint．Judicialauthoritieswillnotinterferewiththearbitraldecisionsonsubstantivemattersunlessacountry’spublicpolicyisviolatedorforothermajorreasons，wheretheyusuallyrefusetorecognizeandenforcearbitralawardsonthegroundsofspecificproceduralmatters，thusensuringtheindependenceofarbitration．Second，Chinawillgainabiggersayindisputeresolution．Atpresent，manyChinesearbitralbodies，suchasChinaInternationalEconomicandTradeArbitrationCommission（CIETAC）haverichexperienceinresolvingcross-borderdisputes．StrengtheningpolicysupportforthesecuritiesarbitrationmechanismandaligningarbitrationruleswithgenerallyacceptedinternationalpracticescaneffectivelyattractrelevantpartiestoChinesearbitralbodiesforresolutionofforeign-relatedbonddisputes．Inparticular，CIETACandtheHongKongInternationalArbitrationCenter（HKIAC）enjoyahighlevelofinternationalizationandbroadrecognitionacrosstheAsia-Pacificregionandeventhelargerworld．Thustheycanbetakenasapointofbreakthroughtoexpandthejurisdictionofcross-borderdisputearbitration．DomesticbondissuerscanalsostrivetousethePRClawsasthegoverninglawsfordisputeresolution，promotetheapplicationofPRClawstocross-borderdisputesandenhanceChina’svoiceincross-borderdisputeresolution．

PossibleDifficultiesinBondDisputeArbitration

Theconsensualnatureofarbitrationnotonlygivesthepartiestherighttochoose，butalsodeterminesthelimitedjurisdictionofthearbitraltribunal．Howtoincludevariouspartiestobonddisputesintothearbitrationagreementisthepreconditiontopromotingtheapplicationofarbitration．Atthesametime，thearbitraltribunalhasnopowerofjudicialinvestigationbackedbythepublicpowerofthestate，facingdifficultiesinthedeterminationofbondtorts．

i．Theconsensualnatureofarbitrationisdifficulttoaccommodatethevarietyofpartiestobonddisputes

Thejurisdictionofanarbitraltribunaloriginatesfromtheconsensusbetweentheparties．Usuallythepartiesneedtosetanarbitrationclauseintheunderlyingcontractorenterintoaseparatearbitrationagreement．Thearbitraltribunalshallonlybecompetenttodealwithmattersforwhichthepartiestothearbitrationagreementhaveagreedtosubmitforarbitration．Thebonddisputeresolutioninvolvesawiderangeofstakeholdersandvariousresponsibleentities．Thekeytocentralandefficientdisputeresolutionistoputmultiplepartiesunderarbitrationjurisdiction．However，thearbitrationofbonddisputesmayfacethefollowingobstaclesinpractice：Ifanarbitrationclausehasbeenincludedintheunderlyingcontractbeforethedisputeoccurs，duetotherelativityanddecentralizationofarbitrationagreements，howtorealizethejointhearingofmanyinvestors’arbitrationcases，andwhetherthearbitrationclauseoftheunderlyingcontractcoverstortdisputes？Ifthereisnoarbitrationclauseavailableatthetimeofdispute，howtoreachanarbitrationagreementwhenthepartiesareinconfrontationalemotions？Ifnotalltheresponsibleentities（e.g．intermediaries）inatortdisputearepartiestothearbitrationagreement，howtorealizethefullremediesforinvestors’rightsandinterests？

Itisdifficultforthetrusteetoperformthecollectiveexerciseofrightsinarbitration．AccordingtoArticle92oftheSecuritiesLaw，“wherebondissuersfailtopaybondprincipalandinterestonschedule，thebondtrusteemay，asentrustedbyallorpartofthebondholders，initiateorparticipateinthetrustee’snameincivillawsuitsorliquidationproceduresonbehalfofthebondholders”．AccordingtoArticle5oftheMinutesofNationalSymposiumonCourtTrialofBondDisputes，“If，whenanissuerisunabletorepaytheprincipalandinterestofbondsasagreedorthereisadefaultasstipulatedinthebondofferingdocuments，thebondtrusteefilesorparticipatesinacivillawsuitinhisownnameonbehalfofbondholdersaccordingtotheauthorizationinthebondofferingdocuments，thetrusteeshipagreement，ortheresolutionofthemeetingofbondholders，orappliesforbankruptcyreorganizationorliquidationofthebondissuer，thepeople’scourtshallacceptitaccordingtolaw．”Thebondtrusteesystemwasdesignedtosolvetheproblemoftoomanybondholdersexercisingrights．Theoretically，however，thetrusteesystemcanhardlyfitintotheinstitutionalframeworkforagencies，representativesandtrusts．Theonlypossibleexplanatoryperspectiveisthestatutorylitigationundertaking．However，thelitigationundertakingofthetrusteeisconditionaluponauthorizationfromthebondholders，thusavoidingdirectlydeprivingthebondholdersoftheirlitigationrights（WangYang，2021）．Asforarbitration，thelawdoesnotstipulatethatthetrusteemayinitiatearbitrationonbehalfofthebondholders．Thetrusteelacksthetheoreticalfoundationlikestatutorylitigationundertaking．Moreover，duetotheconsensualnatureofarbitration，thetrusteeisnotapartytothearbitrationagreement．Theissuermayraiseajurisdictionalobjectiononthisground．Meanwhile，thetrustee’spowertoinstituteasuitonbehalfislimitedtobonddefaultcases．Thelawdoesnotauthorizethetrusteetofileatortactiononbehalf．Therefore，itisdifficultforthetrusteetoassistnumerousinvestorsincollectivelyexercisingrightsinarbitration．

ii．Bondtortdisputesarearbitrablebutwithdifficultiesininvestigationandevidencecollection

Thescopeofarbitrabledisputesinacountryrelatesessentiallytothetransferofjurisdictionfromjudiciaryauthorities，whichinvolvespublicpolicyconsiderationsofthecountry．AccordingtoArticles2and3ofChina’sArbitrationLaw，contractualdisputesandotherdisputesoverpropertyrightsandinterestsbetweencitizens，legalpersonsandotherorganizationsthatareequalsubjectsarearbitrable，butdisputesovermarriage，adoption，guardianship，support，inheritanceandadministrativedisputesthatshouldbedealtwithbyadministrativeauthoritiesinaccordancewiththelawarenotarbitrable．Thebondtortdisputesinnaturearedisputesoverpropertyrightsarisingfromsuchtortsasmisrepresentationandfraudulentissuance，andthereforearearbitrable．Fromtheperspectiveofarbitrabilitytheory，thekeytowhatkindofauthorizationsacountrygivestoarbitrationforpublicpolicyconsiderationsiswhetherarbitrationcanfullycompensatefortheinterestsofinvestorsandmaintaintheorderofcapitalmarket（WangKeyu，2015）．

Atpresent，inthepilotsecuritiesarbitration，thearbitraltribunal’spowertodeterminetortsisreserved，andadministrativeandjudicialpre-procedures3aresetup．Thereasondoesnotlieinthearbitrabilityofbondtortdisputes，butthefactthatcancellingpre-procedureswillleadtomanyproblemswithrespecttoevidenceproduction，tortdeterminationandregulatorycoordination．Takingmisrepresentationasanexample，itmayinvolvesuchissuesastheinvestor’sevidenceproduction，thecriteriafor“materiality”ofmisrepresentation，thedeterminationofcausalityandthecoordinationbetweencivilcompensationandadministrativesupervision（DingYuxiang，2021）．

Arbitrationusuallyfollowstheprinciplethat“theclaimantbearsburdenofproof”，andgrantsthearbitraltribunalthepowertoinvestigateandcollectevidenceonitsown．Theburdenofproofanddeterminationofliabilityinbondtortdisputesarecomplicated．Inpractice，theadministrativepenaltydecisionandcriminaljudgmentdocumentsareimportantevidenceforthepartiestoprovetheillegalityofthetort-feasor’sacts，andarealsothedirectbasisforidentifyingthe“materiality”ofmisrepresentationandotheracts．Iftherearenosuchpre-procedures，thepartieswillbepassiveinadducingevidencetoprovetheessentialfacts．AccordingtoArticle43oftheArbitrationLaw，“thearbitraltribunalmay，asitconsidersnecessary，collectevidenceonitsown．”However，arbitrationisadisputeresolutionmechanismbasedontheparties’consensus．Thearbitraltribunaldoesnothavethejudicialinvestigationpowerbackedbythepublicpowerofthestate．Whetherthearbitraltribunalcancollectevidencesuccessfullydependsonthecooperationfromtheentitiesandindividualsthatretaintheevidence．Inpractice，evidencecollectionpersonneloftenencounter“coldshoulders”，andthereforetheyusuallyholdanegativeattitudetowardsproactivecollectionofevidence（WangHaixia，2017）．Therefore，evenifthearbitraltribunalisconfirmedtohavejurisdictionoverthebondtortcases，itstillfacesdifficultiesininvestigationandevidencecollection．

ThePathtoPromotetheBondDisputeArbitrationMechanismandImprovementSuggestions

Takingtheopportunityofpilotsecuritiesarbitrationandrelyingonthecharacteristicsofthearbitrationsystemandthepracticalvalueofarbitrationinresolvingbonddisputes，theauthorbelievesthatitisadvisabletodevelopanarbitrationmodelfocusedonsectoralarbitration，reachtheparties’arbitrationconsensusthroughvariouschannelsandimprovetherulesforthearbitraltribunalinrespectofinvestigation，evidencecollectionandmediationprocedures．

i．Developingamainstreamsectoralarbitrationmodeltogathercaseswiththeadvantageofrules

Atpresent，thepilotsecuritiesarbitrationproceedsunderthesectoralarbitrationmechanism．Self-regulatoryorganizations（SROs）suchasstockexchangesandarbitrationcommissionscooperateinbuildingasecuritiesarbitrationcenterandincreaseSROs’supportforarbitration．Sectoralarbitrationhassignificantadvantagesinaddressingcross-borderdisputes．First，thearbitrationofbonddisputeswillbeincorporatedintotheunifiedsupervisionsystemofthesecuritiesmarket．Sectoralarbitrationcancombinedisputeresolutionwithself-regulationtobetteralignarbitralawardswiththebondregulatoryobjectives（WangKeyu，2015）．Meanwhile，apartfromsettlingdisputesfairlyinaccordancewiththelaw，disputeresolutioncanalsoprovideanimportantbasisforimprovingthelegalsystemandregulatorypolicies．Second，sectoralarbitrationfacilitatesthestandardizationofarbitraldiscretion．Comparedwiththeexistingarbitralbodiesscatteredaround，havingthedisputescentrallyresolvedthroughanarbitralbodyspecializinginsecuritiesindustrydisputescaneffectivelyimprovetheconsistencyofarbitralawardsonthesameorsimilarissues（WangKeyu，2015）．Third，thearticlesofassociationofSROmembersareagoodcarrierofthearbitrationclause．Themembers’articlesofassociationdefinethecontractualrightsandobligationsamongthemembers，whichcanincorporatethearbitrationclauseinadvancefordirectinvocationuponoccurrenceofdisputesinvolvingmembers．

Evenso，theauthorbelievesthatsectoralarbitrationcanbepromotedasthepreferredarbitrationmodeforbonddisputes，ratherthandesignatedastheonlymode．Arbitrationischaracterizedbyautonomy．Althoughsectoralarbitrationhasmanyadvantagesinpromotingunifiedsupervisionandfacilitatinginvestigationandevidencecollection，ifthesectoralarbitrationpromotedbySROsorevencompetentauthoritiesissetastheonlypathway，itwillblurtheboundarybetweenarbitrationandjustice，thusunderminingtheinstitutionalvalueofdivergedisputeresolutionmechanisms．Asfarasthearbitrationmechanismitselfisconcerned，thecompetitiveadvantageoftherulesissufficienttogathercases．Mandatoryimplementationisunnecessaryandunjustified．Eithersectoralarbitrationcentersorlocalarbitrationcommissionscantakeindisputesovertradingcontractsanddefaultsinvolvingonlycivilproperty-relatedinterests．Thebondtortdisputes，however，notonlyharmthepropertyrightsandinterestsofinvestors，butalsodisruptthenormalorderofthebondmarket．Toensuretheconsistencybetweenthedeterminationofcivilcompensationandthesupervisionbythestate’spublicauthority，thesectoralarbitrationcentercanseektoimproveitsarbitrationrules，includingstrengtheningtheproceduralalignmentwithjudicialauthoritiesintermsofinvestigation，evidencecollectionandawardenforcement，soastoestablishanadvantageofrulesthathelpsbringtortdisputestothesectoralarbitrationcenter．

ii．Reachingarbitrationconsensusthroughmultiplechannels，achievingcentralhandlingofbonddisputes

Themoststraightforwardwayforvariouspartiestoabonddisputetoreachanarbitrationconsensusisincludinganarbitrationclauseinadvanceintheprospectus．Theprospectusisanimportantdocumentforthedisclosureofbondissuanceinformation，providingabasisforinvestorstosubscribeforbondsanddefiningtherightsandobligationsoftheissuerandtheinvestors．However，theprospectusitselfisaninvitationtooffer．Uponsubscriptionbytheinvestorsandacceptancebytheissuer，thecontentscontainedintheprospectus，includingthedisputeresolutionclause，becomethecontracttext（CaoMingzhe，2018），thusreachinganarbitrationconsensusamongvariousparties．Moreover，thearbitrationagreementsbetweendifferentinvestorsandvariousresponsiblepartiesallusethestandardtextprovidedintheprospectus．

Inaccordancewiththerequirementsforpreparingthecorporatecreditbondprospectus，theissuershouldspecifythedisputeresolutionclause．Intheprospectus，however，theeventsofdefaultareusuallylistedbeforethedisputeresolutionclause，sothedisputeresolutionclauseisgenerallyconstruedasaclausespecificallysetfordefaultdisputes．Forthearbitrationclausetoeffectivelycoverthetortdisputes，ontheonehand，itisnecessarytospecifyintheprospectusthatthedefaultdisputesandtortdisputesrelatedtothisissuearearbitrable．Ontheotherhand，thepartiesresponsibleforthetortdisputesmayincludethecontrollingshareholder，de-factocontroller，leadunderwriterandsecuritiesserviceproviderinadditiontotheissuer．Ifthereisnovalidarbitrationagreement，thearbitraltribunalhasnopowertoholdthemliable．Suchentitiesmayundertakeintheprospectusthatthearbitrationclauseintheprospectusshallalsoapplyifthisissuanceharmstheinterestsofinvestors．Ifthearbitrationclauseisnotpresetintheprospectus，investorscanalsonegotiatewiththeresponsiblepartiestoreachanarbitrationagreementafterthedisputeoccurs．Theprivatenatureofarbitrationisanimportantfactortoattractresponsiblepartiestoarbitration．

Underthesectoralarbitrationmechanism，itisadvisabletospecifyarbitrationasanoptionforinvestorsinthearticlesofassociationforSROmembers．WithreferencetoRules600（A）and600oftheNewYorkStockExchange，inthecaseofdisputesinvolvingSROmembers，thedisputesbetweenSROmembersshouldbesubmittedforsectoralarbitration．InthecaseofdisputesbetweenaSROmemberandaninvestor，theinvestormayopttosubmitthedisputeforsectoralarbitrationornot．Iftheinvestorchoosesarbitration，theSROmembershallcooperate．Thismodelistopre-loadSROmember’sarticlesofassociationwiththemembers’intentiontosubmitdisputesforarbitration，withtheflexibilitythattheinvestor’sapplicationforarbitrationisdeemedtobeanarbitrationagreementreachedbetweentheSROmemberandtheinvestor，ratherthanbyenteringintoawrittenarbitrationagreementlikebefore．

Intermsofarbitrationprocedures，investorsinthesameissueofbondmayapplyforarbitrationtogether，oraftermultipleinvestorssubmittheirapplicationsforarbitrationseparately，thearbitrationcommissionmaydecidetomergethemintoasinglecaseforarbitration，thusrealizingcentralhandlingofcases6．Consideringthelargenumberofinvestorsdistributedacrossabroadrangeofgeographicalareas，representativesmaybeelectedfrominvestorstoexercisetherightscollectively，andtheonlinehearingmodemaybeadopted7．

iii．Multi-partysupportforinvestigationandevidencecollectioninarbitration，efficientenforcementofcivilcompensation

Inordertoresolvecivildisputesefficientlybyarbitration，somemechanismsareneededtomakeupfortheshortageofevidenceproducedbythepartiesanddeficienciesininvestigationandevidencecollectionbythearbitraltribunal．Atpresent，Chinahasexplicitlycancelledthepre-proceduresforadministrativepenaltyorthecriminalproceedingsinthecivilactiononsecuritiestortsinmanydocuments8．Asmentionedabove，thearbitraltribunalshouldhavetherighttodeterminetheamountoflosscompensationformisrepresentationandfraudulentissuanceofbonds．Tocancelthepre-arbitrationprocedures，thekeyishowtoaddressinthedifficultiesinevidenceproductionandcollection．First，thecourtshouldprovidesupportfortheinvestigationandevidencecollectionbythearbitraltribunalandlawyers．Ifthearbitraltribunalconsidersitnecessarytocollectrelevantevidenceonitsown，itmayapplytothecourtforassistance．Inlinewiththis，theArbitrationLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina（Revised）（ExposureDraft）issuedin2021reservesthearbitraltribunal’spowertoinvestigateandcollectevidenceonitsown，butaddsaprovisionthat“thepeople’scourtmayberequestedtoassistifnecessary”．Inaddition，attherequestofthepartiesinvolvedinthearbitrationproceedings，thecourtmayissuealawyer’sinvestigationorder，andthelawyershallvisitandpresenttheinvestigationordertotheexchangeandthebonddepositoryandclearinginstitutiontocollectrelevantevidence，soastorelievetheburdenofproofoninvestors（DingYuxiang，2021）．Second，theSROshallprovidethearbitraltribunalwithsupportforinvestigationandevidencecollection．Asthefirst-lineregulatorclosesttothemarket，theSROcanassistthearbitralbodyintheinvestigationandevidencecollectionforbonddisputes，andcanalsoprovideprofessionalsupportforproperdisputeresolutionbasedonitsexperienceinmarketsupervision．Third，professionalagenciesassistinthelossdetermination．Article24oftheProvisionsoftheSupremePeople’sCourtonSeveralIssuesConcerningRepresentativeActioninSecuritiesDisputesprovidesthat“thepeople’scourtmay，upontheapplicationoftheparties，entrustaprofessionalagencyapprovedbybothpartiesorrandomlyselectedtoverifytheamountofinvestmentlossesandthelossdeductionratiocausedbyriskfactorsotherthansecuritiestorts．Wherethepartiesdoesnotmakeanapplicationbutitisnecessaryfortrialofthecase，thepeople’scourtmay，bywayofrandomselection，entrustaprofessionalagencytoverifytherelevantmatters．”Thearbitralbodycanalsoinvolveaprofessionalagencyinlossdetermination，especiallytheSRO’ssectoralarbitrationcenter，andseekprofessionaladvicefromSROexperts．

Inensuringthepriorityofcivilliability，considerationmaybegiventoestablishingasystemofsuspendedentryintotreasurycoffersandfiscalreversal．Eveniftheadministrativeandjudicialpre-proceduresarecancelled，becausethearbitrationprocedureisindependentfromtheadministrativeandjudicialprocedures，theremaystillbeadministrativepenaltyorcriminaljudgmentalreadyenforced，oreffectiveandpendingenforcement，whenthearbitrationawardisdetermined．Insuchcases，amechanismshouldbeintroducedforfiscalreversalorsuspensionofcofferentryofadministrativepenaltiesorcriminalfines（ChenJie，2017）toensuretheeffectiveenforcementofcivilcompensation．

iv．Improvingtheproceduralcoordinationofmediationandarbitration

Mediationisknownas“thetreasureoftheEast”，upholdingthephilosophyof“valuingpeace”indisputeresolution．Mediationcanbeusedasanindependentdisputeresolutionprocedureoraspartofanarbitrationprocedure．Promotingtheapplicationofmediationinthearbitrationprocedurecansubstantiallycutthetimeneededforresolvingthebonddisputeandreachasolutiontothesatisfactionofthepartiesasfaraspossible．

Intermsofmediatorselection，itisadvisabletogobeyondChina’straditionalpracticeofdirectmediationbymembersofthearbitraltribunalandappointtheSROmediationcenterortrustedsecuritiesexpertsasmediators．Thisapproachpreventsthecompromiseorbargainingofthepartiesinmediationfromadverselyaffectingthearbitrationprocedurethatcontinueswhenmediationfailsandeliminatetheconcernsofthepartiesregardingtheapplicationofmediation．Asforthecoordinationbetweenarbitrationandmediationprocedures，wecanlearnfromtheSingapore’spracticeof“arbitration-mediation-arbitration”，thatis，suspendingthearbitrationprocedurewhenthepartiesturntomediation，andterminatingthearbitrationprocedureifthemediationissuccessfulorresumingthearbitrationprocedureifthemediationfailsorthedisputeisnotfullyresolved9．Toensuretheeffectiveimplementationofthemediationagreement，afterthemediationagreementisreached，thearbitraltribunalshouldissueamediationstatementormakeanawardbasedontheagreementreached．

Notes：

1．SeeArticle220oftheSecuritiesLawfordetails：“whereanyoneviolatestheprovisionsofthisLawandisliableforpayingcivilcompensation，finesandpenalties，andturninginillegalgains，ifhisassetsareinsufficienttomakesuchpayments，priorityshallbegiventomakingcivilcompensation．”

2．In1958，theUnitedNationsConferenceonInternationalCommercialArbitrationdeliberatedandadoptedtheConvention，whichenteredintoforceonJune7，1959．

3．TheDraftingNoteontheOpinionsonConductingthePilotProgramonArbitrationintheSecuritiesandFuturesIndustryinAccordancewiththeLawstatesthat“duetotheinsufficientauthorityofthearbitralbodytoconfirmillegalacts，administrativeandjudicialpre-procedureshavebeenestablishedforthearbitrationofdisputesoversecuritiesandfuturescivilcompensation”．

4．PleaserefertoArticle5oftheProvisionsoftheSupremePeople’sCourtonSeveralIssuesConcerningRepresentativeActioninSecuritiesDisputesandArticle85oftheMinutesoftheNationalCourts‘CivilandCommercialTrialWorkConference．

5．PleaserefertoArticle6ofthePilotArbitrationOpinions．

6．ThearbitrationrulesofShenzhenCourtofInternationalArbitration，BeijingArbitrationCommissionandotherinstitutionsallcontainprovisionsoncombinedapplicationandarbitrationformorethanonecontract．

7．Forexample，ShenzhenCourtofInternationalArbitrationhasspeciallyformulatedtheOnlineArbitrationRules，andthelatestrulesoftheBeijingArbitrationCommissionexplicitlyaddsonlinehearingtohearingmethods．

8．Forexample，theMinutesofNationalSymposiumonCourtTrialofBondDisputesmakesitclearthatthepeople’scourtshallnotsupporttherequestforcasedismissalorrejectionmadebythepersonwhocommitsfraudulentissuanceormisrepresentationonthegroundthatthefraudulentissuanceormisrepresentationallegedbythebondholderorinvestorhasnotbeenimposedanyadministrativepenaltybytherelevantauthorityorconfirmedbyaneffectivecriminaljudgmentdocument．TheOpinionsonStrictlyCrackingDownonIllegalSecuritiesActivitiesinAccordancewiththeLawproposedto“improvethecivilcompensationsystem”and“cancelthepre-litigationproceduresforcivilcompensation”．

9．Refertowebsite

http://simc.com.sg/v2/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SIAC-SIMC-AMA-Protocol.pdf

References

[1]CaoMingzhe．TheNatureofBondProspectusandItsJudicialEffects[J]．Bonds，2018（11）：53-57．

[2]ChenJie．TheImplementationMechanismforthePrincipleofPriorityofSecurities-relatedCivilCompensationLiability[J]．SecuritiesMarketHerald，2017（6）：58，60-62．

[3]DingYuxiang．DivergenceEffectsofCancellationofSecuritiesMisrepresentationPre-proceduresandTheirHandling[J]．LawandEconomy，2021（5）：31-46．

[4]HeHaifeng，ChenHaoxin．DiscussionontheApplicationofNewProvisionsonMisrepresentationinDisputesOverBondMisrepresentation[J]．Bonds，2022（3）：24-27．

[5]WangHaixia．AStudyonIssuesRegardingtheArbitralTribunal’sPowertoInvestigateandCollectEvidence[EB/OL]．（2017-12-07）[2022-01-10]．https：//www.sohu.com/a/209112112_100017582．

[6]WangKeyu．AnalysisonthePathofEstablishingandImprovingChina’sSecuritiesTortArbitrationMechanism-FromthePerspectiveoftheDevelopmentofU.S．SecuritiesArbitrationMechanism[J]．LegalForum，2015（2）：109-114．

[7]WangYang．TheDilemmaofBondTrustee’sPositioninLawsuitandtheSolutionundertheNewSecuritiesLaw-FromthePerspectiveoftheCaseofTaihehuiv．Zhongfu[J]．SecuritiesLawReview，2020（2）．

[8]ChinaInternationalEconomicandTradeArbitrationCommission．AnnualReportonInternationalCommercialArbitrationinChina（2020-2021）[M]．Beijing：LawPress，2021：5-6，96．

ThisarticlewasfirstpublishedonBondMonthly（May．2022）．Pleaseindicatethesourceclearlywhencitingthisarticle．TheEnglishversionisforreferenceonly，andtheoriginalChineseversionshallprevailincaseofanyinconsistency．

◇ Authorfrom：CCDCPostdoctoralResearchCenter

◇ Editorsincharge：WeiHairui，YinYing