Wenzhou Financial Services CompanyWenzhou Financial Services Company
CONTACT US
Fax: 0577-8623497
Tel: 0577-8623497
E-MAIL: service@hzruyijia.com
Product classification

Everbright "own" civil claims: another 18 investors

Everbright "Black Dragon refers to" civil claims case into concentrated court sentencing period and has 18 name investors won was lost Shanghai City second intermediate people's Court Yu 23rd on 23 up investors v Everbright Securities Corporation insider trading civil claims case made a trial Referee: 5 pieces case for investors application withdrawal and by court review ruled be allowed, on remaining 18 pieces case respectively made has judgment, support has investors amounted to more than 660,000 more than Yuan of compensation paragraph.

on September 30, Shanghai second intermediate court for the first 8 a verdicts on similar cases, dismissed the claims of two investors, 6 investors-2220 to 200980 civil award of damages. 11:05 August 16, 2013, Everbright securities company in exchange traded funds (hereinafter ETF) Shen foreclosure arbitrage transactions, due to procedural errors, the strategy used by the system to 23.4 billion yuan mountain of subscription stock, actual turnover of 7.27 billion yuan. At 13 o'clock on the day after the market opened, Everbright securities company under undisclosed circumstances by short selling stock index futures and selling ETF hedged to 14:22 announcement saying "corporate policy Department of investment business used its independent arbitrage system there is a problem."

in November, the China Securities Regulatory Commission on administrative punishment decision of Everbright securities company, finds that Everbright securities company before the disclosure of inside information to convert the shares ETF sold and sold short contract constitutes insider trading of stock index futures, forfeiture and a fine of 520 million Yuan and other penalties. From December 2013, investor Everbright securities insider trading in company Securities/Futures litigation dispute appeal their case to the Shanghai second intermediate.

on December 26, 2014, Beijing Yang Jianbo plaintiff versus defendant at the first intermediate people's Court of China Securities Regulatory Commission on administrative punishments, market entry decision in both cases at first instance publicly, both cases judgment dismissed Yang Jianbo claims.

Yang Jianbo appealed in May 2015, the Beijing higher people's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the. Argues in Shanghai, the China Securities Regulatory Commission administrative penalty and related administrative litigation judgement has found that Everbright securities company before the disclosure of inside information to convert the shares ETF sold and sold short contract constitutes insider trading of stock index futures, as a basis for decision in the present case. Everbright securities company is not disclosed under the so-called hedge operations to avoid losses, determination of the existence of fault. Investment in its internal policy Department of the operations management system and cannot violate laws prohibiting insider trading provisions, does not affect the determination of fault of Everbright securities company.

in terms of cause-effect relations, at Everbright securities company insider trading during the 50ETF, 180ETF if the plaintiff investors and its shares, IF1309, IF1312 and its main trading company and Everbright securities insider trading in the opposite direction to the direction, presumption of a causal relationship. Everbright securities company compensation for investor losses caused by its fault. Loss calculation should be based on the actual transaction the plaintiff investor, consider the difference between the transaction price and the reference price, different circumstances a reasonable calculation of amount of loss.

for the plaintiff investor transactions carried out in a non-insider trading period, belong to follow the trend of buying damaged, Everbright securities for investor losses through no fault of the company, unable to determine legal causation, borne by the investors on their own investment risk. In another development, the 23rd, the Shanghai second intermediate investor to another 31 v Everbright securities company civil claims of insider trading trial.

 

BACK