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

　　A Research on the Arbitration Mechanism of Corporate Credit Bond Disputes

　　Dong Nuan

　　Abstract

　　The disputes over corporate credit bonds involve a high level of professionalism and a wide variety of parties． Their proper resolution is essential to maintaining the capital market order and protecting market participants’ rights and interests． Arbitration has the advantages of autonomy， professionalism， efficiency and privacy． It can be used for intensive handling of bond-related disputes， efficient implementation of civil compensation， and effective response to cross-border disputes over bonds． Given the possible difficulties in the application of bond dispute arbitration， it is suggested to take sectoral arbitration as the mainstream mode， reach a multi-party arbitration consensus through multiple channels， support arbitration investigation and evidence collection， and promote the application of mediation in arbitration procedures．

　　Keywords

　　Bond dispute arbitration， sectoral arbitration， arbitration agreement， investigation and evidence collection

　　With the corporate credit bond market expanding in China and the registration-based issuance reform implemented across the board， the market access threshold has been significantly lowered， further underlining the value of post-event risk control and legal remedies． In the course of market development， however， bond disputes such as bond defaults， fraudulent issuance and misrepresentation have occurred from time to time． The bond disputes involve a high level of professionalism， a broad range of stakeholders and a wide variety of responsible parties． The proper resolution of bond disputes is essential to maintaining the capital market order and protecting market participants’ rights and interests．

　　In July 2021， the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on Strictly Cracking Down on Illegal Securities Activities in Accordance with the Law， calling for “improving the civil compensation system” and “carrying out a pilot program on securities sectoral arbitration system”． According to the Annual Report on International Commercial Arbitration in China （2020-2021）， China’s arbitration commissions handled about 226，000 financial cases in 2020， accounting for 56.32% of the total number of cases； the subject matters of financial cases amounted to RMB204.8 billion， accounting for 28.5% of the total． Bond disputes are mostly contractual disputes over bond repurchase transactions （CIETAC， 2021）． In October 2021， China Securities Regulatory Commission （CSRC） and the Ministry of Justice （MOJ） issued the Opinions on Conducting the Pilot Program on Arbitration in the Securities and Futures Industry in Accordance with the Law （the “Pilot Arbitration Opinions”）， setting forth the overall requirements for pilot arbitration， the establishment of a securities and futures arbitration court （center） and the scope of arbitration， the arbitrator selection and appointment mechanism and the coordination with mediation and litigation． In November 2021， Shenzhen took the lead in establishing the China （Shenzhen） Securities Arbitration Center， a move to scale up the pilot securities arbitration．

　　Institutional Advantages of Bond Dispute Arbitration

　　Litigation and arbitration are both statutory ways of dispute resolution． Compared with litigation that embodies the public power of the state， arbitration can better unleash market autonomy and fully respect the wishes of the parties in the dispute resolution process． It also fits the market-oriented， law-based reform philosophy for a registration-based bond issuance system． Specifically， relative to litigation， arbitration has the following advantages in resolving bond disputes．

　　First， autonomy． The parties to a bond dispute may choose the arbitral body， members of arbitral tribunal and arbitration procedures at their discretion． The arbitral body selection is not subject to territorial jurisdiction in litigation， but domestic cases cannot be referred to overseas arbitral bodies for arbitration． The parties may submit the dispute to a reputable and experienced arbitral body for arbitration and choose the arbitrators they trust， thus enhancing the parties’ willingness to execute the award．

　　Second， timeliness． Compared with China’s four-level court system with the second instance being final， arbitration adopts the mode of one-instance arbitration resulting in final award． After the award is made， the parties shall not submit the same dispute for repeat arbitration or litigation， unless the award is revoked or not enforced by the court， thus ensuring that the bond investors receive timely and effective compensation．

　　Third， professionalism． At present， China has improved the professionalism of dispute resolution through the establishment of financial courts and financial tribunals． Different from the permanent team of judges， the group of arbitrators may include arbitrators， lawyers， former judges， experts and scholars with practical experience or academic achievements in the bond field． Through multi-party participation， the professionalism of dispute resolution can be further enhanced．

　　Fourth， privacy． Arbitration shall be conducted in private in principle． The dispute resolution process for corporate credit bonds may involve commercial secrets of a corporation． If the facts in dispute are made public， whether the corporation wins or not， its reputation will be harmed to a certain extent． Arbitration provides the parties with a private way to resolve the dispute．

　　Fifth， enforceability． Although arbitration gives the parties more autonomy， its award is still enforceable． The people’s court provides support for the enforcement of arbitral awards． If one party fails to execute the award， the other party may apply to the court for enforcement．

　　The Practical Orientation and Value Embodiment of Bond Dispute Arbitration

　　According to the Pilot Arbitration Opinions， the securities and futures contract disputes and other disputes over property rights that are covered by the Arbitration Law may be settled through arbitration in accordance with the law． When it comes to bonds， disputes mainly involve bond issuers’ defaults on principal and interest payments at maturity， civil compensation arising from torts such as issuer’s misrepresentation or fraudulent issuance and other property-related disputes． Promoting the application of arbitration in the resolution of bond disputes is not intended to replace judicial remedies， but to highlight the differentiated institutional advantages of arbitration and litigation， that is， to meet investors’ diverse demand for dispute resolution while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of investors with the combined strengths of various mechanisms． Arbitration embodies its value in bond dispute resolution mainly in the following aspects．

　　i． Flexible and efficient resolution of disputes to help enforce civil compensation

　　Bond illegalities may incur civil， administrative and criminal liabilities． Administrative penalties and criminal liabilities have their institutional value in safeguarding the financial supervisory order and cracking hard down on bond-related offenses， while civil compensation， when enforced， can truly make up for the losses of investors． If a bond dispute is simply over default， the responsible parties are only liable to pay civil compensation． If misrepresentation， fraudulent issuance and other illegal acts are involved， however， the responsible parties may face criminal liability， administrative property-related liability and civil compensation liability together． In such circumstances， the basic principle is prioritizing civil liability， that is， when the assets of the responsible person are limited， the civil property-related liability should be enforced first1． The priority of civil compensation essentially lies in the priority of enforcement． In practice， however， the priority of civil compensation is not satisfactorily implemented due to the relative lag in the civil compensation trial and enforcement litigation and the lack of procedural coordination between departments determining the property-related liabilities of different natures （Chen Jie， 2017）．

　　Studying and promoting the arbitration-based resolution of bond disputes can not only accelerate the determination of liabilities with a flexible and efficient arbitration mechanism， but also share the workload of courts． The dispute resolution will become more effective by fully harnessing the procedural flexibility of arbitration and giving the parties the autonomy in choosing the dispute resolution body， venue and arbitrators． The dispute resolution will be more efficient by replacing the “four levels of courts with the second instance being final” mechanism with “one-instance arbitration resulting in final award”， thus meeting bond investors’ urgent needs for quick civil compensation． A diverse group with relevant professional background and practical experience should be encouraged to participate in dispute resolution， thus helping properly tackle legal issues from the perspective of the sector and market． This will help improve and implement the civil compensation mechanism．

　　ii． Extending beyond territorial jurisdictions for professional， central handling of disputes

　　Bond disputes require a high level of professionalism． The identification of illegal acts and allocation of liabilities require a high level of expertise， business practices and case handling experience of dispute resolution personnel． Therefore， financial courts and financial tribunals have been set up throughout the country to hear disputes regarding financial services． Shenzhen has set up the China （Shenzhen） Securities Arbitration Center on a pilot basis apart from the existing arbitration commission， manifesting the philosophy of pooling professional strengths to centrally resolve securities disputes． However， litigation is subject to territorial jurisdiction． According to the Minutes of National Symposium on Court Trial of Bond Disputes issued by the Supreme People’s Court， if a bond dispute involves the issuer， the case should in principle be under the jurisdiction of the court where the issuer is domiciled， unless otherwise agreed by the parties in the bond default case． The agreement here must conform to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Law regarding consensual jurisdiction， i.e． the parties can only choose the court in the place that is actually connected with the dispute．

　　Since there is no “requirement of actual connection” in the arbitral jurisdiction， the parties can freely choose a domestic arbitration commission or， if the bond dispute involves a foreign party， refer the dispute to an overseas arbitral body． The scientificity of arbitration rules and the professionalism of the arbitrator team represent a sharp competitive edge of arbitral bodies． It is expected that most of the cases will be arbitrated by reputable and experienced arbitral bodies in Beijing， Shanghai， Shenzhen， etc． in the future． It will not only ensure professional and fair handling of the cases， but also improve the consistency of arbitration awards to a certain extent as cases are handled more centrally than before．

　　iii． Properly handling cross-border disputes and gaining a bigger say in dispute resolution

　　With China’s bond market opening wider to the outside world， a broader variety of investors are allowed to enter the domestic bond market for a wider range of investment activities． Foreign investments are increasingly facilitated． While foreign investors have a growing exposure to corporate credit bonds in China， cross-border bond disputes will also show an upward trend．

　　The jurisdiction in a litigation case is in principle limited to the territory of a state． Compared with litigation， arbitration has a significant advantage in addressing cross-border disputes． First， the neutrality and credibility of dispute resolution is enhanced． For cross-border bond disputes involving foreign investors， the judicial authority of any country may face doubts about its neutrality in dispute resolution． In contrast， arbitration is a private-sector dispute resolution mechanism． Under the extensive influence of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards2， the judicial authorities uphold the principle of judicial restraint． Judicial authorities will not interfere with the arbitral decisions on substantive matters unless a country’s public policy is violated or for other major reasons， where they usually refuse to recognize and enforce arbitral awards on the grounds of specific procedural matters， thus ensuring the independence of arbitration． Second， China will gain a bigger say in dispute resolution． At present， many Chinese arbitral bodies， such as China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission （CIETAC） have rich experience in resolving cross-border disputes． Strengthening policy support for the securities arbitration mechanism and aligning arbitration rules with generally accepted international practices can effectively attract relevant parties to Chinese arbitral bodies for resolution of foreign-related bond disputes． In particular， CIETAC and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center （HKIAC） enjoy a high level of internationalization and broad recognition across the Asia-Pacific region and even the larger world． Thus they can be taken as a point of breakthrough to expand the jurisdiction of cross-border dispute arbitration． Domestic bond issuers can also strive to use the PRC laws as the governing laws for dispute resolution， promote the application of PRC laws to cross-border disputes and enhance China’s voice in cross-border dispute resolution．

　　Possible Difficulties in Bond Dispute Arbitration

　　The consensual nature of arbitration not only gives the parties the right to choose， but also determines the limited jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal． How to include various parties to bond disputes into the arbitration agreement is the precondition to promoting the application of arbitration． At the same time， the arbitral tribunal has no power of judicial investigation backed by the public power of the state， facing difficulties in the determination of bond torts．

　　i． The consensual nature of arbitration is difficult to accommodate the variety of parties to bond disputes

　　The jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal originates from the consensus between the parties． Usually the parties need to set an arbitration clause in the underlying contract or enter into a separate arbitration agreement． The arbitral tribunal shall only be competent to deal with matters for which the parties to the arbitration agreement have agreed to submit for arbitration． The bond dispute resolution involves a wide range of stakeholders and various responsible entities． The key to central and efficient dispute resolution is to put multiple parties under arbitration jurisdiction． However， the arbitration of bond disputes may face the following obstacles in practice： If an arbitration clause has been included in the underlying contract before the dispute occurs， due to the relativity and decentralization of arbitration agreements， how to realize the joint hearing of many investors’ arbitration cases， and whether the arbitration clause of the underlying contract covers tort disputes？ If there is no arbitration clause available at the time of dispute， how to reach an arbitration agreement when the parties are in confrontational emotions？ If not all the responsible entities （e.g． intermediaries） in a tort dispute are parties to the arbitration agreement， how to realize the full remedies for investors’ rights and interests？

　　It is difficult for the trustee to perform the collective exercise of rights in arbitration． According to Article 92 of the Securities Law， “where bond issuers fail to pay bond principal and interest on schedule， the bond trustee may， as entrusted by all or part of the bondholders， initiate or participate in the trustee’s name in civil lawsuits or liquidation procedures on behalf of the bondholders”． According to Article 5 of the Minutes of National Symposium on Court Trial of Bond Disputes， “If， when an issuer is unable to repay the principal and interest of bonds as agreed or there is a default as stipulated in the bond offering documents， the bond trustee files or participates in a civil lawsuit in his own name on behalf of bondholders according to the authorization in the bond offering documents， the trusteeship agreement， or the resolution of the meeting of bondholders， or applies for bankruptcy reorganization or liquidation of the bond issuer， the people’s court shall accept it according to law．” The bond trustee system was designed to solve the problem of too many bondholders exercising rights． Theoretically， however， the trustee system can hardly fit into the institutional framework for agencies， representatives and trusts． The only possible explanatory perspective is the statutory litigation undertaking． However， the litigation undertaking of the trustee is conditional upon authorization from the bondholders， thus avoiding directly depriving the bondholders of their litigation rights （Wang Yang， 2021）． As for arbitration， the law does not stipulate that the trustee may initiate arbitration on behalf of the bondholders． The trustee lacks the theoretical foundation like statutory litigation undertaking． Moreover， due to the consensual nature of arbitration， the trustee is not a party to the arbitration agreement． The issuer may raise a jurisdictional objection on this ground． Meanwhile， the trustee’s power to institute a suit on behalf is limited to bond default cases． The law does not authorize the trustee to file a tort action on behalf． Therefore， it is difficult for the trustee to assist numerous investors in collectively exercising rights in arbitration．

　　ii． Bond tort disputes are arbitrable but with difficulties in investigation and evidence collection

　　The scope of arbitrable disputes in a country relates essentially to the transfer of jurisdiction from judiciary authorities， which involves public policy considerations of the country． According to Articles 2 and 3 of China’s Arbitration Law， contractual disputes and other disputes over property rights and interests between citizens， legal persons and other organizations that are equal subjects are arbitrable， but disputes over marriage， adoption， guardianship， support， inheritance and administrative disputes that should be dealt with by administrative authorities in accordance with the law are not arbitrable． The bond tort disputes in nature are disputes over property rights arising from such torts as misrepresentation and fraudulent issuance， and therefore are arbitrable． From the perspective of arbitrability theory， the key to what kind of authorizations a country gives to arbitration for public policy considerations is whether arbitration can fully compensate for the interests of investors and maintain the order of capital market （Wang Keyu， 2015）．

　　At present， in the pilot securities arbitration， the arbitral tribunal’s power to determine torts is reserved， and administrative and judicial pre-procedures3 are set up． The reason does not lie in the arbitrability of bond tort disputes， but the fact that cancelling pre-procedures will lead to many problems with respect to evidence production， tort determination and regulatory coordination． Taking misrepresentation as an example， it may involve such issues as the investor’s evidence production， the criteria for “materiality” of misrepresentation， the determination of causality and the coordination between civil compensation and administrative supervision （Ding Yuxiang， 2021）．

　　Arbitration usually follows the principle that “the claimant bears burden of proof”， and grants the arbitral tribunal the power to investigate and collect evidence on its own． The burden of proof and determination of liability in bond tort disputes are complicated． In practice， the administrative penalty decision and criminal judgment documents are important evidence for the parties to prove the illegality of the tort-feasor’s acts， and are also the direct basis for identifying the “materiality” of misrepresentation and other acts． If there are no such pre-procedures， the parties will be passive in adducing evidence to prove the essential facts． According to Article 43 of the Arbitration Law， “the arbitral tribunal may， as it considers necessary， collect evidence on its own．” However， arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism based on the parties’ consensus． The arbitral tribunal does not have the judicial investigation power backed by the public power of the state． Whether the arbitral tribunal can collect evidence successfully depends on the cooperation from the entities and individuals that retain the evidence． In practice， evidence collection personnel often encounter “cold shoulders”， and therefore they usually hold a negative attitude towards proactive collection of evidence （Wang Haixia， 2017）． Therefore， even if the arbitral tribunal is confirmed to have jurisdiction over the bond tort cases， it still faces difficulties in investigation and evidence collection．

　　The Path to Promote the Bond Dispute Arbitration Mechanism and Improvement Suggestions

　　Taking the opportunity of pilot securities arbitration and relying on the characteristics of the arbitration system and the practical value of arbitration in resolving bond disputes， the author believes that it is advisable to develop an arbitration model focused on sectoral arbitration， reach the parties’ arbitration consensus through various channels and improve the rules for the arbitral tribunal in respect of investigation， evidence collection and mediation procedures．

　　i． Developing a mainstream sectoral arbitration model to gather cases with the advantage of rules

　　At present， the pilot securities arbitration proceeds under the sectoral arbitration mechanism． Self-regulatory organizations （SROs） such as stock exchanges and arbitration commissions cooperate in building a securities arbitration center and increase SROs’ support for arbitration． Sectoral arbitration has significant advantages in addressing cross-border disputes． First， the arbitration of bond disputes will be incorporated into the unified supervision system of the securities market． Sectoral arbitration can combine dispute resolution with self-regulation to better align arbitral awards with the bond regulatory objectives （Wang Keyu， 2015）． Meanwhile， apart from settling disputes fairly in accordance with the law， dispute resolution can also provide an important basis for improving the legal system and regulatory policies． Second， sectoral arbitration facilitates the standardization of arbitral discretion． Compared with the existing arbitral bodies scattered around， having the disputes centrally resolved through an arbitral body specializing in securities industry disputes can effectively improve the consistency of arbitral awards on the same or similar issues （Wang Keyu， 2015）． Third， the articles of association of SRO members are a good carrier of the arbitration clause． The members’ articles of association define the contractual rights and obligations among the members， which can incorporate the arbitration clause in advance for direct invocation upon occurrence of disputes involving members．

　　Even so， the author believes that sectoral arbitration can be promoted as the preferred arbitration mode for bond disputes， rather than designated as the only mode． Arbitration is characterized by autonomy． Although sectoral arbitration has many advantages in promoting unified supervision and facilitating investigation and evidence collection， if the sectoral arbitration promoted by SROs or even competent authorities is set as the only pathway， it will blur the boundary between arbitration and justice， thus undermining the institutional value of diverge dispute resolution mechanisms． As far as the arbitration mechanism itself is concerned， the competitive advantage of the rules is sufficient to gather cases． Mandatory implementation is unnecessary and unjustified． Either sectoral arbitration centers or local arbitration commissions can take in disputes over trading contracts and defaults involving only civil property-related interests． The bond tort disputes， however， not only harm the property rights and interests of investors， but also disrupt the normal order of the bond market． To ensure the consistency between the determination of civil compensation and the supervision by the state’s public authority， the sectoral arbitration center can seek to improve its arbitration rules， including strengthening the procedural alignment with judicial authorities in terms of investigation， evidence collection and award enforcement， so as to establish an advantage of rules that helps bring tort disputes to the sectoral arbitration center．

　　ii． Reaching arbitration consensus through multiple channels， achieving central handling of bond disputes

　　The most straightforward way for various parties to a bond dispute to reach an arbitration consensus is including an arbitration clause in advance in the prospectus． The prospectus is an important document for the disclosure of bond issuance information， providing a basis for investors to subscribe for bonds and defining the rights and obligations of the issuer and the investors． However， the prospectus itself is an invitation to offer． Upon subscription by the investors and acceptance by the issuer， the contents contained in the prospectus， including the dispute resolution clause， become the contract text （Cao Mingzhe， 2018）， thus reaching an arbitration consensus among various parties． Moreover， the arbitration agreements between different investors and various responsible parties all use the standard text provided in the prospectus．

　　In accordance with the requirements for preparing the corporate credit bond prospectus， the issuer should specify the dispute resolution clause． In the prospectus， however， the events of default are usually listed before the dispute resolution clause， so the dispute resolution clause is generally construed as a clause specifically set for default disputes． For the arbitration clause to effectively cover the tort disputes， on the one hand， it is necessary to specify in the prospectus that the default disputes and tort disputes related to this issue are arbitrable． On the other hand， the parties responsible for the tort disputes may include the controlling shareholder， de-facto controller， lead underwriter and securities service provider in addition to the issuer． If there is no valid arbitration agreement， the arbitral tribunal has no power to hold them liable． Such entities may undertake in the prospectus that the arbitration clause in the prospectus shall also apply if this issuance harms the interests of investors． If the arbitration clause is not preset in the prospectus， investors can also negotiate with the responsible parties to reach an arbitration agreement after the dispute occurs． The private nature of arbitration is an important factor to attract responsible parties to arbitration．

　　Under the sectoral arbitration mechanism， it is advisable to specify arbitration as an option for investors in the articles of association for SRO members． With reference to Rules 600（A） and 600 of the New York Stock Exchange， in the case of disputes involving SRO members， the disputes between SRO members should be submitted for sectoral arbitration． In the case of disputes between a SRO member and an investor， the investor may opt to submit the dispute for sectoral arbitration or not． If the investor chooses arbitration， the SRO member shall cooperate． This model is to pre-load SRO member’s articles of association with the members’ intention to submit disputes for arbitration， with the flexibility that the investor’s application for arbitration is deemed to be an arbitration agreement reached between the SRO member and the investor， rather than by entering into a written arbitration agreement like before．

　　In terms of arbitration procedures， investors in the same issue of bond may apply for arbitration together， or after multiple investors submit their applications for arbitration separately， the arbitration commission may decide to merge them into a single case for arbitration， thus realizing central handling of cases6． Considering the large number of investors distributed across a broad range of geographical areas， representatives may be elected from investors to exercise the rights collectively， and the online hearing mode may be adopted7．

　　iii． Multi-party support for investigation and evidence collection in arbitration， efficient enforcement of civil compensation

　　In order to resolve civil disputes efficiently by arbitration， some mechanisms are needed to make up for the shortage of evidence produced by the parties and deficiencies in investigation and evidence collection by the arbitral tribunal． At present， China has explicitly cancelled the pre-procedures for administrative penalty or the criminal proceedings in the civil action on securities torts in many documents8． As mentioned above， the arbitral tribunal should have the right to determine the amount of loss compensation for misrepresentation and fraudulent issuance of bonds． To cancel the pre-arbitration procedures， the key is how to address in the difficulties in evidence production and collection． First， the court should provide support for the investigation and evidence collection by the arbitral tribunal and lawyers． If the arbitral tribunal considers it necessary to collect relevant evidence on its own， it may apply to the court for assistance． In line with this， the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China （Revised） （Exposure Draft） issued in 2021 reserves the arbitral tribunal’s power to investigate and collect evidence on its own， but adds a provision that “the people’s court may be requested to assist if necessary”． In addition， at the request of the parties involved in the arbitration proceedings， the court may issue a lawyer’s investigation order， and the lawyer shall visit and present the investigation order to the exchange and the bond depository and clearing institution to collect relevant evidence， so as to relieve the burden of proof on investors （Ding Yuxiang， 2021）． Second， the SRO shall provide the arbitral tribunal with support for investigation and evidence collection． As the first-line regulator closest to the market， the SRO can assist the arbitral body in the investigation and evidence collection for bond disputes， and can also provide professional support for proper dispute resolution based on its experience in market supervision． Third， professional agencies assist in the loss determination． Article 24 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Representative Action in Securities Disputes provides that “the people’s court may， upon the application of the parties， entrust a professional agency approved by both parties or randomly selected to verify the amount of investment losses and the loss deduction ratio caused by risk factors other than securities torts． Where the parties does not make an application but it is necessary for trial of the case， the people’s court may， by way of random selection， entrust a professional agency to verify the relevant matters．” The arbitral body can also involve a professional agency in loss determination， especially the SRO’s sectoral arbitration center， and seek professional advice from SRO experts．

　　In ensuring the priority of civil liability， consideration may be given to establishing a system of suspended entry into treasury coffers and fiscal reversal． Even if the administrative and judicial pre-procedures are cancelled， because the arbitration procedure is independent from the administrative and judicial procedures， there may still be administrative penalty or criminal judgment already enforced， or effective and pending enforcement， when the arbitration award is determined． In such cases， a mechanism should be introduced for fiscal reversal or suspension of coffer entry of administrative penalties or criminal fines （Chen Jie， 2017） to ensure the effective enforcement of civil compensation．

　　iv． Improving the procedural coordination of mediation and arbitration

　　Mediation is known as “the treasure of the East”， upholding the philosophy of “valuing peace” in dispute resolution． Mediation can be used as an independent dispute resolution procedure or as part of an arbitration procedure． Promoting the application of mediation in the arbitration procedure can substantially cut the time needed for resolving the bond dispute and reach a solution to the satisfaction of the parties as far as possible．

　　In terms of mediator selection， it is advisable to go beyond China’s traditional practice of direct mediation by members of the arbitral tribunal and appoint the SRO mediation center or trusted securities experts as mediators． This approach prevents the compromise or bargaining of the parties in mediation from adversely affecting the arbitration procedure that continues when mediation fails and eliminate the concerns of the parties regarding the application of mediation． As for the coordination between arbitration and mediation procedures， we can learn from the Singapore’s practice of “arbitration-mediation-arbitration”， that is， suspending the arbitration procedure when the parties turn to mediation， and terminating the arbitration procedure if the mediation is successful or resuming the arbitration procedure if the mediation fails or the dispute is not fully resolved9． To ensure the effective implementation of the mediation agreement， after the mediation agreement is reached， the arbitral tribunal should issue a mediation statement or make an award based on the agreement reached．

　　Notes：

　　1． See Article 220 of the Securities Law for details： “where anyone violates the provisions of this Law and is liable for paying civil compensation， fines and penalties， and turning in illegal gains， if his assets are insufficient to make such payments， priority shall be given to making civil compensation．”

　　2． In 1958， the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration deliberated and adopted the Convention， which entered into force on June 7， 1959．

　　3． The Drafting Note on the Opinions on Conducting the Pilot Program on Arbitration in the Securities and Futures Industry in Accordance with the Law states that “due to the insufficient authority of the arbitral body to confirm illegal acts， administrative and judicial pre-procedures have been established for the arbitration of disputes over securities and futures civil compensation”．

　　4． Please refer to Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Representative Action in Securities Disputes and Article 85 of the Minutes of the National Courts‘ Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference．

　　5． Please refer to Article 6 of the Pilot Arbitration Opinions．

　　6． The arbitration rules of Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration， Beijing Arbitration Commission and other institutions all contain provisions on combined application and arbitration for more than one contract．

　　7． For example， Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration has specially formulated the Online Arbitration Rules， and the latest rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission explicitly adds online hearing to hearing methods．

　　8． For example， the Minutes of National Symposium on Court Trial of Bond Disputes makes it clear that the people’s court shall not support the request for case dismissal or rejection made by the person who commits fraudulent issuance or misrepresentation on the ground that the fraudulent issuance or misrepresentation alleged by the bond holder or investor has not been imposed any administrative penalty by the relevant authority or confirmed by an effective criminal judgment document． The Opinions on Strictly Cracking Down on Illegal Securities Activities in Accordance with the Law proposed to “improve the civil compensation system” and “cancel the pre-litigation procedures for civil compensation”．

　　9． Refer to website

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

　　References

　　[1] Cao Mingzhe． The Nature of Bond Prospectus and Its Judicial Effects [J]． Bonds， 2018（11）： 53-57．

　　[2] Chen Jie． The Implementation Mechanism for the Principle of Priority of Securities-related Civil Compensation Liability [J]． Securities Market Herald， 2017（6）： 58， 60-62．

　　[3] Ding Yuxiang． Divergence Effects of Cancellation of Securities Misrepresentation Pre-procedures and Their Handling [J]． Law and Economy， 2021（5）： 31-46．

　　[4] He Haifeng， Chen Haoxin． Discussion on the Application of New Provisions on Misrepresentation in Disputes Over Bond Misrepresentation [J]． Bonds， 2022（3）： 24-27．

　　[5] Wang Haixia． A Study on Issues Regarding the Arbitral Tribunal’s Power to Investigate and Collect Evidence [EB/OL]． （2017-12-07） [2022-01-10]． https：//www.sohu.com/a/209112112_100017582．

　　[6] Wang Keyu． Analysis on the Path of Establishing and Improving China’s Securities Tort Arbitration Mechanism - From the Perspective of the Development of U.S． Securities Arbitration Mechanism [J]． Legal Forum， 2015（2）： 109-114．

　　[7] Wang Yang． The Dilemma of Bond Trustee’s Position in Lawsuit and the Solution under the New Securities Law - From the Perspective of the Case of Taihehui v． Zhongfu [J]． Securities Law Review， 2020（2）．

　　[8] China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission． Annual Report on International Commercial Arbitration in China （2020-2021） [M]． Beijing： Law Press， 2021： 5-6， 96．

　　This article was first published on Bond Monthly （May． 2022）． Please indicate the source clearly when citing this article． The English version is for reference only， and the original Chinese version shall prevail in case of any inconsistency．

　　◇Author from： CCDC Postdoctoral Research Center

　　◇Editors in charge： Wei Hairui， Yin Ying