Category: Money Tips Date: 2006-09-18
Comrade Zhou:
Recently, I saw an advisory body to the shareholders and the disputes arising between the cases reported in the case, shareholders Wang, an Investment Advisory Co., Ltd. and Beijing signed a stock investment in 2001 members of the contract, in September 2002, Mr. Wang to a certain is committed to the cause of its loss of earnings is sued to require a company to return and bear the loss of consulting fees, totaling 4 million yuan. Court of First Instance in shares of a company sub-agency dispute, take full responsibility for it caused grave concern in the community, and later dissatisfied with the company's first-instance appeal. After repeated trials, the final court of second instance in order to share information on service contract disputes commuted to 20 thousand yuan assume the responsibility of a company. May be a matter of fact, now there are still a number of advisory bodies to the high profitability word of mouth as bait to attract many investors to join the membership. However, when investors pay a huge amount of service fee to become a member, they found the services enjoyed by far, and word of mouth was so good, it has already is too late, in the end bad if it tried to recover the service charge. I feel that the aforementioned cases, the shareholders Mr. Wang is still relatively lucky, he recovered some of the service fee, but other investors to recover service charges Why is it so hard?
Jiangsu Liu
Mr. Liu Ming:
You mentioned there are some typical cases, the first case the contract is not agreed upon stock dividends commission earnings approach, the case of the stock agent, the agent gains in the way dividends are mainly relying on profit taking, while the case is only the contract agreement The advisory fees for fixed line services, securities investment consulting business operations of character, and therefore should be a securities advisory services to contractual disputes. Second, the case of a company with Mr. Wang agreed in the contract signed by members of "guaranteed return of 20% by the company bear the corresponding risk", in violation of the relevant provisions of state securities investment in "securities investment consulting agencies are not allowed to promise investors Securities and investment income "of the relevant provisions, resulting in the contract is invalid or partially invalid. However, many reasons for the rise and fall of stock markets, stock prices can not make deterministic prediction, the risk of equity investments should be well known, appellee should not be completely reliable and fully accepted this commitment to invest in the appellant's comments, which court held that the null and void the contract should be a responsibility on both sides. Finally, under the law of evidence theory, the proceedings apart from the evidence cited by the parties should have the legitimacy, authenticity, must also stand with the fact that relevant. But look at the case, the plaintiff only the evidence provided by the Securities and Exchange closing report card, the Securities and Exchange report card is only proof of the fact that appellee to stock, even if the resulting losses, but we can not confirm these losses are carried out under the instruction appellant The stock exchange losses arising as a requirement for the appellant, according to assume full responsibility for its loss can not be supported by the courts.
From this case we can see that self-awareness of risk as investors is weak, lack of access to means of evidence and the current absence of effective regulation of the law, making membership-based Securities and Investment Advisory services industry in the irregularities in the prevalence of the interests of investors are not any protection is becoming worse.
January 1, 2006, the CSRC issued the "membership-based Securities and Investment Advisory Business Management Interim Provisions" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Provisions") formally implemented, which is the field of securities investment consulting major regulatory initiatives for the entire membership-based Securities and investment advisory business, health, regulate the development of great significance. However, constraints and norms alone securities investment advisory services to institutions themselves can not completely solve the problem of risk advisory services, and investors into the stock market in addition to readjust their mentality, the more necessary to strengthen their awareness of the law and pay attention to regulate its own law investment behavior and identify the pros and cons of consulting services to effectively protect their legitimate rights and interests, to avoid the risk of investment.
Shanghai Guang-fa CHEN Wen Yu Da Law Firm
