At 9:00 on September 8, 2006, a major social concern "Oriental electronic case" in Qingdao City, Shandong Province, the Intermediate People's Court of first courtroom hearing, which marks the most awful domestic investors sue persons - involving seven one thousand shareholders, sued the subject of the largest - the total target amount of over 400 million yuan of the "national security first case" about to enter the stage of a comprehensive settlement.
The trial of 100 Bi Xiaoyan et al. V. Yantai Dongfang Electronics Information Industry Co., Ltd., Shandong dry poly limited liability accounting firm of false securities information disputes, all claims amounting to approximately 5,000,000. The presiding judge announced the case: As the case has a large number of evidence and more features, the hearing before the Court has been the exchange of evidence, and check the identity of the parties and the transaction situation, the two sides have issued cross-examination opinions, and for the record, for which 100 plaintiffs case, the Full Court decided to merge the trial. The same day, after five hours of court investigation and court debates, during the trial, the eight parties to the dispute in this case has aroused strong focus of attention of many media.
Focus One: 100 shareholders as whether the plaintiff eligibility?
"Plaintiff's agent in its own name instead of the plaintiff signed the complaint, does not comply with the law, court 100 cases, the complaint was received by the defendant the plaintiff's agent signature without a signature plaintiff, the plaintiff agent's behavior is beyond the proxy rights behavior ...... "0900, the plaintiff claims and finished just a statement of facts and reasons, namely the first defendant made the reply.
Then, 100 shareholders as whether the plaintiff eligibility? In this regard, the plaintiff's agent Guwen Jiang, Liu Lingyun said, the plaintiff has submitted to rigorous identification and authorization documents, the documents prove that the plaintiff is the full civil capacity and interest in the case, in part through a notarized copy, the other directly submitted to the Court ; on commission procedures are personally signed by the plaintiff in this case, the delegate is valid. As mandated, the duo withdraw claims the right to change, due to the changes in the mandate, it signed the agent's name in the complaint. The plaintiff has the qualification, the authorized legal and valid. Moreover, according to the regulations, submit identity cards in line with legal procedures, ordinary civil procedure does not require the plaintiff to appear in person.
Focus II: Dongfang Electronics as a defendant eligibility?
Trial, Dongfang Electronics, said, according to the regulations, investors filed a civil action on the premise that the accused must be subject to administrative punishment or criminal judgment, but the case did not have the right authority to make administrative punishment Dongfang Electronics, nor criminal penalties, and therefore the plaintiff sued not in line with pre-conditions. In Yantai City Intermediate People's Court ruling three executives Dongfang Electronics, the Dongfang Electronics is not recognized as guilty, it can not be used as a defendant.
In this regard, the plaintiff's agent Guwen Jiang, Liu Lingyun said there was no investigation of his criminal responsibility, does not prove not bear civil liability.
Focus 3: Dry polyethylene CPA eligibility as a defendant?
Dry poly CPA reply that its case should be classified as defendants a number of provisions of the Supreme People should prevail, provided that the defendant should be subject to administrative or criminal penalties, but there is no punishment, in line with exemption criteria. In this regard, the plaintiff's agent Guwen Jiang, Liu Lingyun said, by no punishment there is no violation of the inferences drawn, really ridiculous.
Focus Four: Dongfang Electronics acts constitute a false statement?
Plaintiff Attorney Guwen Jiang, Liu Lingyun said on Dongfang Electronics lawsuit is a criminal judgment as a prerequisite, namely the Yantai City Intermediate People's Court of criminal sentences, although a verdict against three executives, but there are provisions of the Criminal Code 161, the crime of false financial reports are subject units, penalties objects are executives, it is the basic feature of Unit Crime. Penalties against three executives is proof Dongfang Electronics issued a false report.
In this regard, Dongfang Electronics argues that the Commission is currently their behavior is not constitute a false statement to review, not yet concluded. Plaintiff's loss was caused by a variety of factors, including the fact that the existence of price manipulation, insider trading, and risks exist in the system.
