On the morning of Thursday, the second instance of Foshan Lighting (000541) false statement claim was held in the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province. Foshan lighting lawyers said in court that Foshan Lighting's violations were not significant, only minor embarrassment, and therefore asked the court to reject all claims of the shareholders. However, the lawyers on behalf of the shareholders told the Public Securities News and the Financial Network reporter that the other party did not present any new evidence.
Company: Self-discrimination is not significant On November 14, 2014, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on the first batch of stockholders v. Foshan Lighting Securities' false claims liability disputes. Foshan Lighting compensated more than 900 shareholders for 59.31 million yuan. Refreshed the historical high of securities claims. Subsequently, Foshan Lighting expressed dissatisfaction with this judgment and initiated an appeal.
In the second trial on Thursday, Foshan Lighting's representative lawyer proposed that Foshan Lighting's information disclosure violations are not significant, can only be regarded as minor information disclosure, and do not need to bear the liability for the loss of investors, so the former The judgment all appealed and requested the second instance court to reject all claims of the shareholders.
However, investors' lawyers do not agree with this statement. “Foshan Lighting Company was subject to administrative penalties by the China Securities Regulatory Commission for concealing the associations and related transactions of 16 companies such as Hong Kong Sky in regular reports and interim reports. The accumulated amount of related transactions concealed exceeded 200 million, of course violations. "Significant." Beijing Yingke Law Firm, Xiaoli Li said so.
Yan Xiaoli believes that Foshan Lighting Company did not file administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation against the CSRC. Therefore, Foshan Lighting Company’s false statement of violations as determined by the CSRC’s administrative penalty documents is a fact. In the civil litigation of investor claims, Foshan Lighting has denied that the illegal incidents are not "significant" and it is meaningless. On the other hand, if the SFC considers that the listed company's letter of infringement is not serious, there is no need to impose penalties. The CSRC has imposed severe penalties on listed companies, which is sufficient to show that the violations have reached the major standards.
Human rights lawyers: there is no other new evidence <br> <br> According to Zhejiang Yufeng Li Jian Law Firm lawyers, parties to the dispute in court focused on: the matter of punishment is not part of a major event, the behavior and impact statements false Is there a causal relationship between the loss of the stockholders, how to determine the implementation date, whether there are two disclosure days, the method of calculating the purchase price and the average price, and whether the investor’s losses should be deducted from market risks.
In the opinion of the investor's lawyer, Foshan Lighting did not propose any new evidence to overturn the first-instance judgment, but only re-uttered the words that had already been said in the first instance. "They didn't come up with any new evidence and opinions." Xiaoli said.
"Fashan lighting information disclosure illegal facts have been identified by the CSRC's punishment decision, the illegal facts are clear, and the evidence is sufficient; the high court's interpretation of the false statement is also very clear." Li Jian believes that the possibility of second-instance judgment is relatively small.
Unlike listed companies that have not submitted new evidence, there are new ideas for human rights lawyers. Wu Lijun, Shanghai Oriental Cambridge Law Firm, proposed that there should be two disclosure days in accordance with the time and content of the notice of investigation by the CSRC. “The misrepresentation of 11 companies was not revealed at the outset, but was revealed on November 2, 2012. Therefore, at least two disclosure days should be identified, which means the scope of the claim. expand."
On February 9 this year, the Public Securities News and Caixin.com launched a claim for rights protection activities for Foshan Lighting. A total of 74 investors participated. At present, the cases of these investors have been accepted by the court and are awaiting trial.
Company: Self-discrimination is not significant On November 14, 2014, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on the first batch of stockholders v. Foshan Lighting Securities' false claims liability disputes. Foshan Lighting compensated more than 900 shareholders for 59.31 million yuan. Refreshed the historical high of securities claims. Subsequently, Foshan Lighting expressed dissatisfaction with this judgment and initiated an appeal.
In the second trial on Thursday, Foshan Lighting's representative lawyer proposed that Foshan Lighting's information disclosure violations are not significant, can only be regarded as minor information disclosure, and do not need to bear the liability for the loss of investors, so the former The judgment all appealed and requested the second instance court to reject all claims of the shareholders.
However, investors' lawyers do not agree with this statement. “Foshan Lighting Company was subject to administrative penalties by the China Securities Regulatory Commission for concealing the associations and related transactions of 16 companies such as Hong Kong Sky in regular reports and interim reports. The accumulated amount of related transactions concealed exceeded 200 million, of course violations. "Significant." Beijing Yingke Law Firm, Xiaoli Li said so.
Yan Xiaoli believes that Foshan Lighting Company did not file administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation against the CSRC. Therefore, Foshan Lighting Company’s false statement of violations as determined by the CSRC’s administrative penalty documents is a fact. In the civil litigation of investor claims, Foshan Lighting has denied that the illegal incidents are not "significant" and it is meaningless. On the other hand, if the SFC considers that the listed company's letter of infringement is not serious, there is no need to impose penalties. The CSRC has imposed severe penalties on listed companies, which is sufficient to show that the violations have reached the major standards.
Human rights lawyers: there is no other new evidence <br> <br> According to Zhejiang Yufeng Li Jian Law Firm lawyers, parties to the dispute in court focused on: the matter of punishment is not part of a major event, the behavior and impact statements false Is there a causal relationship between the loss of the stockholders, how to determine the implementation date, whether there are two disclosure days, the method of calculating the purchase price and the average price, and whether the investor’s losses should be deducted from market risks.
In the opinion of the investor's lawyer, Foshan Lighting did not propose any new evidence to overturn the first-instance judgment, but only re-uttered the words that had already been said in the first instance. "They didn't come up with any new evidence and opinions." Xiaoli said.
"Fashan lighting information disclosure illegal facts have been identified by the CSRC's punishment decision, the illegal facts are clear, and the evidence is sufficient; the high court's interpretation of the false statement is also very clear." Li Jian believes that the possibility of second-instance judgment is relatively small.
Unlike listed companies that have not submitted new evidence, there are new ideas for human rights lawyers. Wu Lijun, Shanghai Oriental Cambridge Law Firm, proposed that there should be two disclosure days in accordance with the time and content of the notice of investigation by the CSRC. “The misrepresentation of 11 companies was not revealed at the outset, but was revealed on November 2, 2012. Therefore, at least two disclosure days should be identified, which means the scope of the claim. expand."
On February 9 this year, the Public Securities News and Caixin.com launched a claim for rights protection activities for Foshan Lighting. A total of 74 investors participated. At present, the cases of these investors have been accepted by the court and are awaiting trial.
Guii Labs Vape,Fume Extra 1500 Puffs ,Disposable Vapor Stick ,Vape Pen Pop
TSVAPE Wholesale/OEM/ODM , https://www.tsvaping.com