本文從整理分析我國最高法院有關財務預測之判決出發，歸納出公開
發行公司利用財務預測制度從事違法行為之主要類型包括：違反證券交易
法第 157 條之 1 內線交易責任、第 32 條公開說明書責任，以及第 20
條證券詐欺或資訊不實責任等規定。惟同樣涉及財務預測內容是否具有「重
大性」或是否構成「主要內容」之判斷，最高法院在適用不同法條之違法
類型時，卻有不同的判斷標準。例如，在內線交易的案件類型，法院多傾
向認為財務預測內容具有重大性；而在公開說明書責任時，法院則多認為
財務預測，並非公開說明書之主要內容。
基於上述觀察，本文嘗試在現行法制下探討下列問題：一、內線交易、
公開說明書與證券詐欺所謂之「重大性」或「主要內容」，是否具有相同之
意涵？二、在我國法制下，財務預測是否具有法定重大性？三、財務預測
內容重大性之判斷，其標準為何？四、市場測試否足以作為重大性之認定？
此外，本文亦參考美國 1995 年私人證券訴訟改革法之規定、相關法院判
決與研究，從立法論角度思考，就我國財務預測安全港制度提出相關建議。

This paper starts from analyzing the decisions of the Supreme Court
regarding forward-looking statements in Taiwan, and observes that public
companies can use forward-looking statements to violate the Securities and
Exchange Act. The major types of such violations include insider trading,
false or misleading statement in prospectus, and securities fraud. However,
the Supreme Court’s interpretations of “materiality” in insider trading cases or
“material contents” in prospectus are different in terms of forward-looking
statements. For example, for insider trading cases, the Court tends to hold that
a forward-looking statement is material, while for the prospectus cases, the
Court takes the opposite position.
Based on the above observation, this paper tries to study the following
questions under the existing laws: 1. Whether the element of “materiality” or
“material content” has the same meaning in insider trading, prospectus and
securities fraud cases? 2. Whether a forward-looking statement is considered
to be statutorily material? 3. What is the standard for assessing materiality for
a forward-looking statement? 4. Is there a market test for materiality? In
addition, from the legislative perspective, this paper also proposes a safe harbor
for forward-looking statements by taking reference from the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 as well as relevant court decisions and
researches of the United States.