美國聯邦最高法院於Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo 一案，主張原告須具體指證被告之詐欺行為，因嗣後經揭發或更正，致股價下跌之結果，予以充份說明，損害之相當因果關係始能建立，從而原告遂不得僅以不當虛漲價格買進之結果，即謂已盡其損害因果關係之舉證責任。但本文認為此一損害事後觀點論證，恐將衍生更大之規範難題。蓋投資人以虛增股價購買股票，此時損失即已發生，如採取所謂事後觀點認定原告在證券詐欺中所受到的損害，無疑鼓勵證券詐欺之被告，散佈更多不實消息到證券市場，以緩和市場對於最初不實陳述或隱匿的不良反應，以減輕公司對於詐欺應負賠償責任之可能。換言之，事後觀點將使被告利用市場機制，使法院決定損失的價值判決產生缺陷，使得被告有能力控制市場對更正揭露的反應，致無法適當地內部化其詐欺成本。因此，台灣證券詐欺訴訟實務在損失因果關係的認定上，不宜採用美國在Dura 案之事後觀點見解，而應肯認事前觀點，即原告僅須證明其以不當之股價為交易即完備其損害因果關係之舉證責任。

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dura Pharmaceuticals decision requires a plaintiff to show a market decline (ex post losses), as opposed to price inflation at the time of purchase (ex ante losses), in order to maintain an action for securities fraud. However, this paper points out that Dura has made it possible for corporate management to strategically disclose
information that purposely obscures the causal connection. Indeed, it is not unusual for a company to release material good news on the same day that it provides the market with a corrective disclosure regarding concealed risk. Then it is very difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate that the material misrepresentation caused investors an economic loss by an expost rule. Hence, this paper argues that we should adopt the view of ex ante rule in Taiwan.That is, an artificial price inflation on the date of purchases is sufficient for plaintiff to allege loss causation.