The small shareholders who have received attention from all walks of life have complained about the false statement of liability disputes on Optoelectronics Securities. The reporter has learned from the lawyers of well-known securities rights lawyers and director of Guangdong Benben Law Firm Liu Guohua that they have received the Guangzhou Intermediate Level recently. The summons of the case served by the people's court. The case will be closed at 14:15 on May 18, 2016, and the statute of limitations for some eligible investors will be only for the last month, and the expiration will lose the right to win.
Two penalties for false statements
On February 25, 2013, "Investment Times" published a report on "Qin Shang Opto's suspected fraudulent listing if it was verified or faced with investor class actions", questioning Qinshang Optoelectronics in the prospectus to conceal its relationship with Guangdong Pinshang Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. Related relationships and related party transactions, inflated the first half of 2011 results. On February 28th, Qinshang Optoelectronics issued a clarification announcement to deny the media question.
On March 26, 2013, some media published a report on the investigation of the truth of Qinshang Optoelectronics's alleged fraudulent listing. It questioned Qinshang Optoelectronics' intention to conceal related transactions and inflated profits in the prospectus. Qinshang Optoelectronics issued an announcement on April 2 and the sponsor's verification opinion, acknowledging the company's relationship with Pinshang Optoelectronics and Barton Lighting. The company's transactions with Pinshang Optoelectronics in 2010 and 2011, and Barton in 2008 The transactions that occur in lighting are all associated transactions.
On May 3, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics received the “Notice of Investigation†from the CSRC.
On May 12, 2014, Qinshang Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. received the “Administrative Punishment Decision†([2014] No. 4) from the Guangdong Regulatory Bureau of the China Securities Regulatory Commission. The "Administrative Punishment Decision" states that: Qinshang Optoelectronics, (1), related relationships and related party transactions were not disclosed according to law. (II) The second largest domestic customer in 2009 was not disclosed according to law. (3) The clarification announcement denies that there is a relationship with Pinshang Optoelectronics. The Guangdong Regulatory Bureau of the China Securities Regulatory Commission decided to order Qinshang Optoelectronics to correct, give a warning, and impose a fine of 400,000 yuan; and Li Wuliang, 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 the Guangdong Securities Regulatory 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.
Qinshang Optoelectronics also rarely became one of the listed companies that were twice punished for false statements. After the punishment was issued, many investors filed a lawsuit claim.
The statute of limitations is only the last month
“Strictly speaking, this is already a problem at the level of fraudulent distribution.†When talking about the time when the company’s false statements were made by the company, some human rights lawyers believed that the viciousness of Qin’s false statements should be more serious. A listed company with a sense of compliance was not only firmly denied by the media in 2013 when the false statement violated the basic facts. In 2015, Qinshang Optoelectronics was again disclosed because it did not disclose large non-operating capital transactions with the largest shareholder. The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau penalized. "When the follow-up law is amended, can the CSRC level make recommendations? If a listed company is administratively punished by the Securities and Futures Commission for a false statement within a few years, whether it can be considered for criminal responsibility, after all, the letter of the listed company The cost of non-compliance is too low, and the violators simply don't care. At least when the securities law is revised, the cost of violating the false statements of listed companies should be greatly increased." An industry insider suggested.
Lawyer Liu Guohua believes that one of the ways to increase the illegal costs of these companies is that investors take legal weapons to make claims.
According to the administrative punishment decision letter, media reports, company announcements and other materials of the Guangdong Regulatory Bureau of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, Qinshang Optoelectronics has repeatedly made false statements. Investors who have bought and sold in multiple time periods meet the claim conditions: 1. Before February 25, 2013 Buying the stock and selling or continuing to hold the stock after February 25, 2013, there is a loss of investment difference; 2. Buying the stock from February 25, 2013 to March 26, 2013, and After the sale or continued holding of stocks after March 26, 2013, there is a loss of investment difference; 3. From January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2014, there is a purchase of Qinshang Optoelectronics, and in 2014 12 Selling or continuing to hold stocks after the 1st of the month, there is a loss of investment balance.
The time limit for filing a civil claim against the first administrative penalty will expire on May 12, 2016, and the current statute of limitations is only the last month. After the expiration of the statute of limitations, investors will lose the right to win a claim against Qinshang Optoelectronics based on the first administrative penalty. Due to the need to submit a copy of the ID card and the original certificate, the investor's time is very tight.
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court has a case of successful shareholders
According to public information, on March 31, 2013, Qinshang Optoelectronics had 22,424 households. On December 31, 2014, the number of shareholders was 34,350. According to the stock price trend, a considerable proportion of investors meet the claim conditions, but the current number of rights defenders is small. Most investors do not know that they meet the claim conditions. In the end, more than 90% of eligible investors or missed claims opportunities. Some investors are worried that they need to invest a lot of time, energy and money, and the cost of safeguarding rights is high, resulting in a loss of compensation. The claim is not positive. Mr. Liu Guohua said that there is no need to worry too much about the cost. At present, lawyers basically adopt risk agency, investors need to invest energy and There are not many moneys, and because of the facts of the false statements, the CSRC has determined that the legal part has the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, and there is a high rate of success in similar cases.
Lawyer Liu Guohua pointed out that the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court has many cases of compensation. For example, the earlier small and medium-sized investors v. Hisense Kelon, and the small and medium-sized investors who claimed the most in recent years, the largest amount of compensation, the Foshan lighting case was the judgment of the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, and the small and medium investors v. Meida The case was also decided by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, and most of the prosecuted investors received compensation. For the Qinshang Optoelectronics case, Liu said that according to the facts and laws, he is full of confidence in winning the case.
Take a deep breath, close your eyes, the world has the freshest oxygen ... Yu Quan's "Deep Breath" is well known to us, but as the environmental problems become more and more serious, the haze sky also increases, PM2.5 PM10 and so on Vocabulary has also been mentioned more and more, and air purifiers have quickly become popular on the market with this "air quality" trend. Along with this, the air-clean brand has sprung up, and various technologies are dazzling. Which ones are indeed effective and which are just tasteless propaganda? How does the Air Purifier bother us to get rid of pollution? And look at the editors for you.
Analysis of air purifier
The critical value of PM2.5 content is 75 μg / m3
The pollutants in the air mainly include soot, total suspended particulates, inhalable particulates (PM2.5) and fine particulates (PM10). The smaller the diameter of the particulates, the deeper the part that can enter the respiratory tract. 10 micron diameter particles It is deposited in the upper respiratory tract, and particles below 2 microns can penetrate 100% into the bronchiole and alveoli.
1k-5k air purifier prices vary greatly
The air purifier products on the market not only have various functions, but also have prices ranging from thousand yuan to tens of thousands. The pricing of imported products is generally higher than that of domestic brands. Except for the core technology of many brands, the promotion of purification effects is similar, and consumers need to choose according to demand.
The air quality standard of 74 key cities is only 4.1%
According to the data of the press conference held by the State Council Information Office on June 4, according to the new "Ambient Air Quality Standards", the six pollutants SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO and O3 were evaluated, 74 new standards In the first phase of monitoring and implementation, the proportion of cities that met the ambient air quality standards was only 4.1%, and the other 256 cities implemented the old air quality standards, and the proportion of cities that met the standards was 69.5%.
Air purifier sales increased by 90.5% compared with last year
According to a report recently released by the China Electronics and Information Industry Development Institute, due to the haze weather, air purifiers have become the most concerned home appliance products, with sales of nearly 2.4 million units nationwide last year, a year-on-year increase of 90.5%; retail The amount reached 5.6 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 105.9%.
HEPA filter needs to be replaced in March
The filter of the air purifier is the same as the filter of the water purifier, and it is not effective for a long time. After long-term use, the accumulation of dust on the surface of the filter will also cause the filter to gradually fail. Therefore, when the haze is more serious, the non-washable HEPA filter needs to be replaced every three months.
Merchants claim that the purification rate is more than 99% for the concept of stealing
99% or even 99.99% seems to have become a slogan for many air purifiers on the market. Many brands of products promote their high removal rate of PM2.5 and formaldehyde. In fact, this kind of publicity is more of a kind. The slogan of stealing the concept, the removal rate of 99% is the effect of the material itself on PM2.5 and formaldehyde, not the effect of actually running in space.
Air Cleaner,Household Air Cleaner,Office Air Cleaner,Air Cleaner For Children
Ningbo Zhe Kai Electric Appliance Co.,Ltd , https://www.cnairpurifiers.com