The minority shareholders who have received much attention from all walks of life have complained about the fact that the company has a new progress in the dispute over the misrepresentation of securities (002638.SZ).
The 21st Century Business Herald reporter learned from the lawyer of Liu Benhua, the director of Guangdong Benben Law Firm, that the case was heard in the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court on the afternoon of August 2.
Both the original and the defendant had several lawyers appearing in court. The trial lasted for more than three hours. The debate on the implementation of the false statement, the disclosure date, and whether the stockholders’ losses were systematically risked and other factors caused the loss of the stockholders.
Just the day before, the company issued an announcement, the company issued shares and paid cash to purchase assets and raised matching funds and related transactions were approved by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, becoming the first private enterprise to acquire education and training assets.
False statement twice punished
The cause of the case was that on May 3, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Notice of Investigation†from the CSRC; on May 12, 2014, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Administrative Punishment Decision†from the Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau.
The "Administrative Punishment Decision Book" shows that Qinshang Optoelectronics has not disclosed the related relationship and related party transactions according to law, has not disclosed the second largest domestic customer in 2009, and has denied the association with Pinshang Optoelectronics in the clarification announcement.
The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau decided to order Qinshang Optoelectronics to correct, give warnings, and impose a fine of 400,000 yuan; and Li Xuliang, Huang Guanzhi, Wei Li, Mao Xiaobin and other senior executives also imposed corresponding administrative penalties.
On December 1, 2014, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Notice of Investigation†from the CSRC. On March 17, 2015, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Administrative Punishment Decision†from Guangdong Guangdong Supervision Bureau. According to the survey, in 2013 and 2014, the company had non-operating capital transactions with Dongguan Qinshang Group Co., Ltd., the largest shareholder. The accumulated amount was as high as 1.82 billion yuan. The company did not fulfill its information disclosure obligations on this matter. The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau decided to impose a fine of 500,000 yuan on the company and imposed a fine of 30,000 to 300,000 yuan on the responsible senior management.
Liu Guohua said that Qinshang Optoelectronics has rarely become a listed company that was twice punished for false statements. The company was still making false statements after it was first investigated by the regulatory authorities in 2013, which is rare.
The 21st Century Business Herald reporter learned that after the relevant punishments of Qinshang Optoelectronics were issued, many damaged shareholders filed a lawsuit claim.
Disagreement is fierce
According to Liu Guohua, due to the many false statements made by Qinshang Optoelectronics, there are many differences between the lawyers on the implementation date and the disclosure date of the false statements because of the different understanding of the law.
For the disclosure date of the false statement involved in the first administrative penalty, the plaintiff's lawyer has advocated February 25 and March 25, 2013, and there are also claims for April 2, while the defendant claims to be May. 3 or February 25. Regarding the implementation date of the false statement related to the second administrative penalty, the plaintiff claimed that on January 1, 2013, the defendant claimed August 29, 2013 (the date of the semi-annual report).
Regarding the loss of the stockholders, what caused the factors, the original and the defendants are even more divided. The plaintiffs believed that the stock price of the defendant company fell because the defendant’s management was chaotic, multiple false statements, distortion of the stock price, and violation of the legitimate rights and interests of the shareholders. The defendant should bear the corresponding liability.
The defendant claimed that at least 50% of the losses of the shareholders were caused by other factors such as systemic risks, and submitted the k-line chart of companies such as Shelley and Sunshine Lighting as evidence. In this regard, the plaintiff's lawyer said that he did not agree.
The plaintiff's lawyer pointed out that the plaintiff bought the Qinshang Optoelectronics stock, not the index or other index, and on March 26, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics stock fell, falling 8.37% on April 2, and fell 5.50% on April 3. In the short three trading days, it has fallen by more than 20%. The trend of Qinshang Optoelectronics is completely different from that of the index and other stocks.
Moreover, the defendant needs to prove that the cause of the system market risk exists, and the matter has a significant impact on the stock market, causing the stock price to fall sharply, resulting in systemic risk; the securities market system risk and the plaintiff's loss have The inevitable causal relationship; it is clear which part of the plaintiff’s loss was caused by the defendant’s false statement, and which part of the loss was caused by other factors in the securities market system risk.
It is worth noting that many points of disagreement in the case still need to be judged by the court, so it was not pronounced in court.
Lawyer Liu Guohua pointed out that the statute of limitations for filing a civil claim for the first administrative penalty has expired on May 12, 2016, and the statute of limitations for filing a civil claim for the second administrative penalty has the last seven months, after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Investors will lose the right to win.
“From January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2014, there are investors who buy and enter the company and sell or continue to hold stocks after December 1, 2014. Investors who have lost investment balances can still claim Liu Guohua said.
The 21st Century Business Herald reporter learned from the lawyer of Liu Benhua, the director of Guangdong Benben Law Firm, that the case was heard in the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court on the afternoon of August 2.
Both the original and the defendant had several lawyers appearing in court. The trial lasted for more than three hours. The debate on the implementation of the false statement, the disclosure date, and whether the stockholders’ losses were systematically risked and other factors caused the loss of the stockholders.
Just the day before, the company issued an announcement, the company issued shares and paid cash to purchase assets and raised matching funds and related transactions were approved by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, becoming the first private enterprise to acquire education and training assets.
False statement twice punished
The cause of the case was that on May 3, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Notice of Investigation†from the CSRC; on May 12, 2014, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Administrative Punishment Decision†from the Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau.
The "Administrative Punishment Decision Book" shows that Qinshang Optoelectronics has not disclosed the related relationship and related party transactions according to law, has not disclosed the second largest domestic customer in 2009, and has denied the association with Pinshang Optoelectronics in the clarification announcement.
The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau decided to order Qinshang Optoelectronics to correct, give warnings, and impose a fine of 400,000 yuan; and Li Xuliang, Huang Guanzhi, Wei Li, Mao Xiaobin and other senior executives also imposed corresponding administrative penalties.
On December 1, 2014, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Notice of Investigation†from the CSRC. On March 17, 2015, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Administrative Punishment Decision†from Guangdong Guangdong Supervision Bureau. According to the survey, in 2013 and 2014, the company had non-operating capital transactions with Dongguan Qinshang Group Co., Ltd., the largest shareholder. The accumulated amount was as high as 1.82 billion yuan. The company did not fulfill its information disclosure obligations on this matter. The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau decided to impose a fine of 500,000 yuan on the company and imposed a fine of 30,000 to 300,000 yuan on the responsible senior management.
Liu Guohua said that Qinshang Optoelectronics has rarely become a listed company that was twice punished for false statements. The company was still making false statements after it was first investigated by the regulatory authorities in 2013, which is rare.
The 21st Century Business Herald reporter learned that after the relevant punishments of Qinshang Optoelectronics were issued, many damaged shareholders filed a lawsuit claim.
Disagreement is fierce
According to Liu Guohua, due to the many false statements made by Qinshang Optoelectronics, there are many differences between the lawyers on the implementation date and the disclosure date of the false statements because of the different understanding of the law.
For the disclosure date of the false statement involved in the first administrative penalty, the plaintiff's lawyer has advocated February 25 and March 25, 2013, and there are also claims for April 2, while the defendant claims to be May. 3 or February 25. Regarding the implementation date of the false statement related to the second administrative penalty, the plaintiff claimed that on January 1, 2013, the defendant claimed August 29, 2013 (the date of the semi-annual report).
Regarding the loss of the stockholders, what caused the factors, the original and the defendants are even more divided. The plaintiffs believed that the stock price of the defendant company fell because the defendant’s management was chaotic, multiple false statements, distortion of the stock price, and violation of the legitimate rights and interests of the shareholders. The defendant should bear the corresponding liability.
The defendant claimed that at least 50% of the losses of the shareholders were caused by other factors such as systemic risks, and submitted the k-line chart of companies such as Shelley and Sunshine Lighting as evidence. In this regard, the plaintiff's lawyer said that he did not agree.
The plaintiff's lawyer pointed out that the plaintiff bought the Qinshang Optoelectronics stock, not the index or other index, and on March 26, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics stock fell, falling 8.37% on April 2, and fell 5.50% on April 3. In the short three trading days, it has fallen by more than 20%. The trend of Qinshang Optoelectronics is completely different from that of the index and other stocks.
Moreover, the defendant needs to prove that the cause of the system market risk exists, and the matter has a significant impact on the stock market, causing the stock price to fall sharply, resulting in systemic risk; the securities market system risk and the plaintiff's loss have The inevitable causal relationship; it is clear which part of the plaintiff’s loss was caused by the defendant’s false statement, and which part of the loss was caused by other factors in the securities market system risk.
It is worth noting that many points of disagreement in the case still need to be judged by the court, so it was not pronounced in court.
Lawyer Liu Guohua pointed out that the statute of limitations for filing a civil claim for the first administrative penalty has expired on May 12, 2016, and the statute of limitations for filing a civil claim for the second administrative penalty has the last seven months, after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Investors will lose the right to win.
“From January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2014, there are investors who buy and enter the company and sell or continue to hold stocks after December 1, 2014. Investors who have lost investment balances can still claim Liu Guohua said.
the blue ray dvd case use to pack the dvd-r ,cd-r ,blue ray dvd-r,blue ray cd-r
blue ray dvd case ,blue ray dvd box ,blue ray dvd cover
Shantou Yashidar Electronic Co.LTD , https://www.headsetswireless.com