Fulltext Search

山东胜通集团股份有限公司(以下简称“胜通集团”)债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一,相关中介机构均被行政处罚,备受资本市场关注。日前,青岛市中级人民法院(下称“青岛中院”)对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。

本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例,一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞:(1)新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息;(2)全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失;(3)充分考察债券价格、交易量变化,突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日;(4)创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场,应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。

该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定,标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外,该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定,进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践,积累了宝贵经验,具有相当的前沿性和示范性。

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

新疆某上市公司(下称“公司”)因信息披露违规被中国证监会行政处罚,引发众多股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼(下称“本案”),金杜代理公司应诉。近期,新疆某中级法院就本案作出一审判决,驳回股民全部诉讼请求。

本案系典型的证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼。该类案件因涉及股民众多、索赔金额高、专业性强,往往引发资本市场高度关注。从以往的案例来看,上市公司被行政处罚后引发的股民诉讼,法院判决驳回原告全部诉讼请求的案例极为罕见。本案中,金杜基于以往处理类似案件的丰富经验和专业把握,针对本案的案情特点,有针对性地提出了上市公司不应承担股民损失的答辩意见,最终得到法院支持。这是金杜代理上市公司成功应对股民提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼的又一经典案例。

案情简介

2014年7月,中国证监会作出《行政处罚决定书》,认定公司连续多年虚构购销业务,虚增业务收入与成本,虚增或者虚减利润,导致公司2006年至2011年年报存在信息披露违规问题。

截止目前,本案共有70余名股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼,此外,还有批量股民以律师函的方式向公司进行索赔。

本案主要争议焦点及金杜整体应对思路

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

On 31 March, 2015, the Supreme People’s Court issued four model cases, including Shagang LLC. (Shagang) v. Kaitian LLC.(Kaitian), a case in relation to an objection to enforcement of a distribution plan. In the case, the Court has referred to the Deep Rock Doctrine originated from the United States, states for the first time that shareholders whose capital contribution is insufficient shall be subordinated to external creditors of the company with respect to their payable debts.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.