금융투자업자의 신인의무에 대한 소고 - 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 -
Fiduciary Duty of Financial Investment Businesses - Centering on the Theoretical Evolvement in the U.S.
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", recently enacted in the U.S. with a view to strengthen investor protection, states that the SEC "may promulgate rules to provide that" "a broker or dealer, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer" is applied by "the standard of conduct" which "shall be the same as the standard of conduct applicable to an investment adviser under section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940." The Dodd-Frank Act is the first law that stipulates brokers, dealers, and investment advisers as having fiduciary duties against their clients. Before the legislation, while case laws have recognized the fiduciary duty of investment advisors, that of brokers and dealers has been disputed producing several theories on whether and, if so, to what extent the broker-dealer's fiduciary duty should be acknowledged. In this regard, the Dodd-Frank Act should be appraised to have made a tentative conclusion on the dispute in a restrictive manner. Under the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act of Korea, financial investment businesses bear fiduciary duties. The fiduciary duties of each financial investment businesses need to be differentiated depending on the extent of trust and confidence on them by their clients. The Capital Market Act, however, does not provide specific standards of conduct applied to each of investment advisors and discretionary investment advisors, on whom retail customers put greater trust and confidence than on brokers and dealers, although it does emphasize their fiduciary duty, which calls for further study on detailed standards of conduct, originated from fiduciary duty, imposed on each financial investment business,
Abstract
The "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act", recently enacted in the U.S. with a view to strengthen investor protection, states that the SEC "may promulgate rules to provide that" "a broker or dealer, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer" is applied by "the standard of conduct" which "shall be the same as the standard of conduct applicable to an investment adviser under section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940." The Dodd-Frank Act is the first law that stipulates brokers, dealers, and investment advisers as having fiduciary duties against their clients. Before the legislation, while case laws have recognized the fiduciary duty of investment advisors, that of brokers and dealers has been disputed producing several theories on whether and, if so, to what extent the broker-dealer's fiduciary duty should be acknowledged. In this regard, the Dodd-Frank Act should be appraised to have made a tentative conclusion on the dispute in a restrictive manner. Under the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act of Korea, financial investment businesses bear fiduciary duties. The fiduciary duties of each financial investment businesses need to be differentiated depending on the extent of trust and confidence on them by their clients. The Capital Market Act, however, does not provide specific standards of conduct applied to each of investment advisors and discretionary investment advisors, on whom retail customers put greater trust and confidence than on brokers and dealers, although it does emphasize their fiduciary duty, which calls for further study on detailed standards of conduct, originated from fiduciary duty, imposed on each financial investment business,
참고문헌 (21)
- 김건식, "자본시장법" (2009), 두성사
- 김병연, "이사의 충실의무와 영미법상 신인의무(Fiduciary duty)", 상사법연구, 24(3), pp.61~82 (2005), 한국상사법학회
- 박철영, "투자자문업 및 투자일임업에 관한 법적 규제의 현황과 과제", 증권법연구, 10(1), pp.1~23 (2009), 한국증권법학회
- 송인방, "지배주주의 행위기준", 법학연구, (21), pp.167~190 (2006), 한국법학회
- 장근영, "영미법상 신인의무 법리와 이사의 지위", 비교사법, 15(1), pp.269~302 (2008), 한국비교사법학회
- Brent Taylor, "Investment Adviser Issues for Broker-Dealers", SIFMA Compliance & Legal Division Annual Seminar (2007)
- Cheryl Goss Weiss, "A Review of the Historic Foundations of Broker-Dealer Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Duty", J. Corp. L., 23, pp.65~ (1998)
- "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act(H.R. 4173)", ~
- Frederick Mark Gedicks, "Suitability Claims and Purchases of Unrecommended securities: An Agency Theory of Broker-Dealer Liability", Ariz. St. L.J., 37, pp.535~ (2005)
- George Schieren, "Suitability and Institutions", Prac. L. Inst., pp.905, 699~
- Matthew J. Benson, "Online Investing and the Suitability Obligation of Brokers and Broker-Dealers", Suffolk U. L. Rev., 34, pp.395~ (2001)
- Louis Loss, "Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 1", ~ (1983)
- Louis Loss, "The SEC and the Broker-Dealer", Vand. L. Rev., 1, pp.516~ (1948)
- Randall W. Quinn, "Deja Vu All Over Again: The SEC's Return to Agency Theory in Regulating Broker-Dealers", Colum. Bus. L. Rev., 61 (1990)
- Robert H. Mundheim, "Professional Responsibilities of Broker-Dealers: The Suitability Doctrine", Duke L.J., 445 (1965)
- Roberta S. Karmel, "Is the Shingle Theory Dead?", Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 52, pp.1271~ (1995)
- Steven A. Ramirez, "The Professional Obligations of Securities Brokers under Federal Law: An Antidote for Bubbles?", U. cin. L. Rev., 70, pp.527~
- Thomas Lee Hazen, "The Law of Securities Regulation 4th ed." (2002)
- "Morningstar Advisor: Broker-Dealers and Other Non-Fiduciaries as Fiduciaries?, 09-03-09"[URL]