Everbright Securities refused to settle. On the afternoon of June 9th and the whole day of June 10, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court held three sessions to organize the original defendant to exchange evidence. Five attorneys had several rounds of confrontation with the lawyers of the defendant Everbright Securities on the authenticity and relevance of the evidence presented by the other party, involving compensation of more than 6.8 million yuan.
The presiding judge told the reporter that after the exchange of evidence, the official trial will have to wait at least one month, and whether to take a joint trial at that time remains to be discussed.
This case is very complicated.
At present, the Second Intermediate People's Court has accepted 8 1 civil claim of Everbright Securities, and this number is still rising.
Yesterday morning, Xu Feng, the plaintiff's attorney who exchanged evidence, said that on June 9th, six lawsuits against Everbright Securities were accepted, involving compensation of 2174,500 yuan. Lin Rong, the plaintiff's lawyer who exchanged evidence in the afternoon, said that the claims submitted so far are just the tip of the iceberg. "Some private placements were still damaged that day, and the claim amount was about100000."
In 74 cases in which evidence has been exchanged, the situation of the injured investors is varied. Among the 33 cases represented by Yan, the securities case 15 and the futures case 18. Among them, the securities cases are all bought in the afternoon 13:00- 14:22, while the futures cases include various transactions, some of which are bought in the morning and afternoon, and some are bought in the afternoon.
In the lawsuit represented by Wang Zhibin's lawyer, there are not only cases prosecuted for insider trading, but also cases prosecuted for infringement. "Before the morning of August 1 1: 05, futures investors holding short positions can claim compensation according to the Tort Liability Law." Wang Zhibin said.
In the exchange of evidence, the evidence issued by the plaintiff includes the investigation and handling of the abnormal trading events of Everbright Securities by the CSRC, the corresponding administrative punishment decision, the plaintiff's identity information, historical transaction records and so on. The evidence presented by the defendant is the business management system of the strategic investment department of Everbright Securities, which proves that the transactions involved in Everbright Securities comply with the corresponding regulations, and the reports of relevant media on the day of the incident, which proves that the abnormal trading information was made public before 13, and the stock and futures market charts of that day, which prove that there is no necessary connection with the losses of investors.
During the cross-examination after the exchange of evidence, Wang Zhibin, the plaintiff's attorney, said that the defendant confused the difference between civil compensation for insider trading and civil compensation for market manipulation. The plaintiff did not claim compensation from the defendant on the grounds that the defendant was suspected of manipulating the market, and the proportion of the defendant's turnover to the total turnover, regardless of its size, did not affect his civil liability for compensation based on insider trading.
Liu Lingyun, the defendant's attorney, suggested that securities and futures traders should be responsible for their own rights and responsibilities. There is no direct causal relationship between the defendant's wrong transactions and the losses of investors, and the loss calculation advocated by the plaintiff is neither legally based nor reasonable. "Of the 8 cases represented by Lin Rong, 6 are in line with the direction of Everbright, and its losses have nothing to do with Everbright." Liu Lingyun said.
Refuse to reconcile
After the explosive exchange of evidence, when the presiding judge asked the original defendant whether he agreed to settle out of court, Everbright Securities made it clear that it was unwilling to settle.
In addition, Everbright Securities has applied to the court to suspend the lawsuit, because the case of Everbright Oolong referring to Yang Jianbo v. CSRC has been delayed. The trial date expected by the industry after one month is likely to be postponed again.
In fact, after the "816" incident, the progress of the case of investor v. Everbright Securities has been slowing down in the slow lane. Since Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court first accepted the case of plaintiff Bao Jufen v. Everbright Securities on February 2 last year, Everbright Securities filed a jurisdictional objection with No.2 Intermediate People's Court. After the objection was rejected, Everbright Securities subsequently appealed to the Shanghai Higher People's Court, which rejected it in early March.
The objection of jurisdiction finally settled, and the case of Yang Jianbo v. Securities and Futures Commission added variables to investors' claims. On April 3rd, the case of Yang Jianbo, the protagonist of the "8 16" incident of Everbright Securities, v. China Securities Regulatory Commission was publicly heard in the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. Even if Yang Jianbo changed his mind in court and only filed a lawsuit against the administrative penalty decision and the market ban decision made by the CSRC, whether his case won or not was still related to the case of investor v. Everbright Securities.
"When the decision on administrative punishment is contrary to the facts ascertained in the effective judgment, the court shall ascertain the relevant facts according to the effective judgment." Wang Zhibin said.
In late May, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court informed that due to the complexity of the case, with the approval of the Higher People's Court, the sentence will be postponed for up to three months.