APM 3 Phase Ac Power Supply system model SPS300VAC15000W is applicable to the lots of testing sectors like home electronic appliances, power adapters, LEDs, laboratory, aerospace, medical ,automatic and scientific research testing etc.t The 3 Phase AC Power Source system is able to analog output normal or abnormal power input for electrical device to meet test requirements.
Some features as below:
15000W Three Phase AC Source System 13500W Three Phase AC Source System,3 Phase Power Cord,3 Phase Power Cable,Power Source System APM Technologies (Dongguan) Co., Ltd , https://www.apmpowersupply.com
On November 14, 2014, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court publicly pronounced 930 investors v. Foshan Lighting Securities' false statement liability dispute. The first-instance judgment resulted in the defendant Foshan Lighting giving the plaintiff within fifteen days from the date of the legal effect of the judgment. The compensation amounted to 59,310,191.16 yuan. The reporter noted that the plaintiff’s investment balance was lost and received full support from the court, but the proportion of systemic risk was deducted. The ratio between the amount of investor claims and the number of claims awarded by the court is about 50%. What is the basis for the court to deduct the damage caused by the system risk? The reporter interviewed the rights lawyer to give you a detailed answer.
The system first instance risk calculation method <br> <br> reporter has learned that the Court's judgments a total of 68, the judgment made divided into three parts: the body, Schedule I, Schedule II. The first 24 pages are the comprehensive part of the court, and the plaintiff’s name, identity information, claim amount, compensation amount, litigation fee burden, and the entrusted agent are listed in the attached table. Table 2 lists the compensation amount and investment balance of each plaintiff. The specific component of the plaintiff’s compensation amount, such as loss, loss of system risk, commission loss, stamp duty loss, and interest loss.
According to the court's judgment, "the judicial interpretation stipulates that the defendant's evidence proves that the plaintiff's loss is caused by systemic risk. It can be concluded that there is no causal relationship between the plaintiff's loss and the defendant's behavior... The defendant's evidence is to some extent It can be proved that there is a certain correlation between the decline of Foshan Lighting stock and the systemic risk of the market... In combination with the actual situation of the case, the Court determines the Shenzhen Index as the parameter, and buys the average price* loss calculation number*(1) - The Shencheng Index at the time of sale/the average Shenzhen Index at the time of purchase) Calculates the amount of the system risk. After deducting the amount caused by the system risk, the remaining investment balance loss of the plaintiff should still be borne by the defendant."
The reporter interviewed Xu Feng, a lawyer of Shanghai Huarong Law Firm, one of the lawyers of the plaintiffs. After comparing the data, the court calculated the average price of the purchase as each investor bought the shares from the implementation date to the disclosure date. The number of moving weighted average calculations, while the average deep formation index at the time of purchase is obtained by the same weighted average of the deep formation indices corresponding to different buying points. With such a complicated workload, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court closed the case within three months after the trial, and the efficiency of handling the case is still very worthy of recognition.
Around the court system risk deduction from different perspectives <br> <br> As the verdict said, Foshan Lighting stock defendant submitted, the index K line chart does not adequately prove the plaintiff's loss was caused by systemic risk, according to the Court, "Civil Procedural Law "provisions of Article 64 in accordance with the terms of reference for the transfer of suspects during the Shenzhen Component Index and the Shenzhen stock Exchange website Foshan lighting stock's closing price and other data as evidence to support FSL system risk defense.
Lawyer Xu Feng believes that the defendant should bear strict burden of proof on the claim of systemic risk. Where the law does not stipulate systemic risk definitions and calculation standards, the court should be cautious about the identification of systemic risks.
In light of past cases of false statements in securities, local courts have different opinions on whether system risks should be deducted and how they are deducted. For example, in the case of the trial of Nantong Science and Technology (Zhongheng International), the Jiangsu Higher People’s Court held that in determining the losses caused by systemic risks, it is not possible to adopt a single standard, but to synthesize the comprehensive index of the securities market, the total market value of the outstanding shares, and the industry in which the stock is located. Judging the changes in the four types of data of the sector index and the total market capitalization of the sector's outstanding shares.
In the recent judgment of the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court on the case of investor Zhang’s v. Wuchangyu Securities false statement dispute, the court simply stated that “in the case of deducting the risk factors of the securities market system, the plaintiff’s loss is... ...", there is no explanation for the deduction of the calculation method, and there is no way to know how the system risk is deducted from the investor. Xu Feng, the lawyer of Wuchang Fish Investor, also stated: "The Wuhan Intermediate People's Court has not yet made a judgment on 52 cases that we represent. If the final court makes a judgment based on the aforementioned Zhang case, then we will appeal to the senior people of Hubei Province. The court sought a reasonable explanation."
Multi lawyers believe that the second trial commuted unlikely <br> <br> worth mentioning is that the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court to investors and trading real identity, integrity questioned Foshan Lighting for the defendant, also from the board's Shenzhen Branch The company transferred the securities account card of the plaintiff and the transaction record of the plaintiff buying and selling Foshan Lighting stock. On the whole, the court should still make judgments from the perspective of fair protection of the interests of investors and listed companies.
According to Xu Feng, the first-instance judgment has already determined that Foshan Lighting has a false statement and should compensate investors for investment losses in accordance with the law. At the same time, the implementation date of the false statement is July 15, 2010, and the disclosure date is July 6, 2012. According to the judicial interpretation, investors who bought Foshan Lighting stocks from July 15, 2012 to July 6, 2012 and sold or held stocks after July 6, 2012 can participate in the claim. .
However, Foshan Lighting issued a major lawsuit announcement on November 17, saying that the dissatisfaction will appeal to the Supreme People's Court of Guangdong Province. If the appeal will result in the first-instance judgment not taking effect. However, many human rights lawyers believe that it is unlikely that the second instance will be reconsidered in terms of the current judgment.
Attorney Xu Feng finally reminded investors that the statute of limitations for the case ended on March 6, 2014, with less than 100 days left. To participate in the claim, it must be before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Otherwise, the right to win the case will be lost and the compensation will not be obtained. . 
Lawyers explain the first verdict of Foshan Lighting
How is the system risk deducted?