The question of the triple trading firm dragged on for years before big shareholders or tens of millions of dollars

The company said that, in view of the fact that the case result has formed the triple group occupying company funds, the company's board of directors will uphold the rights of the Triple Group in accordance with the law of the newspaper trainee reporter Wang Jing Yang yesterday evening, the triple Company issued on the Sino-Silver Mansion property dispute lawsuit case, said that the senior people's Court in Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as "Shandong High Court") issued ( 2011 Rumin A final word of the 185th Civil decision, the decree lifting the triple group and real estate developers in the "commercial housing pre (sales) agreement", by the triple Group will return the property to the Bank of China Silver Mansion land use right person that is the banking Company Limited Jinan branch, At the same time by the Bank of Jinan to return the triple group purchase 12.36 million and corresponding interest. The case originated in September 2006, the triple Group and the Triple Company signed the "real estate debt Agreement", it is intended to hold the middle Bank building 20th floor of the entire floor of the property, to compensate for its capital consumption of 14.126 million yuan. The scheme was approved by the provisional shareholders ' meeting in November 2006. However, in 2007, the Triple group, as the owner of the property to the Jinan in the court, to the above 20th floor real estate Sales contract disputes, sued the housing developers Jinan Silver Industrial Co., Ltd. and BOC Building land use rights of the Bank of China Ltd. Jinan branch. Sanlian Group V. said that in January 2000, one of its developers with the BOC company signed the "commercial Housing Pre (sale) agreement", and in August 2001 the total price paid to the bank, but the bank has not been for its housing property rights. After investigation, the land for the allocation of land, the right to use people for the Bank of Jinan, is now in the Bank of the house owner of the Bank of Jinan, the production of the people from the control room, according to the law that the kind of property is not allowed to buy and sell. Accordingly, the triple Group lawsuit request to dissolve with BOC Company signed "Commercial housing pre (sell) Sale agreement", and request the Bank of China to return the purchase money, compensation for interest loss and decoration costs, totaling about 21.1 million yuan. In June 2011, Jinan in the court issued a first-instance verdict, the decree lifted the triple group and the Bank of China signed the "commercial housing pre (sell) agreement", the triple group will return the property to Jinan, Bank of China, at the same time, Jinan Bank returned to the triple group purchase money and corresponding interest. After the first instance of the decision issued, the Bank of Jinan said that the verdict, to the Shandong High Court filed an appeal. And the triple company in order to assert the company's rights, protect the interests of the company and shareholders, companies in the case of the third person's identity, in March 2012 to the People's Republic of China Supreme Court to apply for retrial and receive. The High Court of Shandong Province held a hearing on December 17, 2012. January 23, 2014, the triple Trading Company received the High Court of Shandong Province issued the (2012) Rumin again the word 20th "civil judgment book", that the original verdict found the facts clearly, the applicable law is correct, the reason for the application of retrial is not tenable. The ruling upheld the High Court of Shandong Province (2011) Rumin A final word of the 185th civil judgment, this judgment is the final judgment. The triple trading Company believes that the triple group in the settlement of the debt scheme has been reportedWith the approval of the China Securities Regulatory Commission and approved by the shareholders ' general meeting of the company, it has seriously harmed the interests of all shareholders of the company and the company by not informing the company after it has been mortgaged to the company, still asserting its rights to the Court in the capacity of the owner of the house and obtaining the support of the legal judgment, which, at the end of 2011, The company has transferred the asset to other non-current assets accounting and has made full provision for impairment. Analysts believe that the triple trading firm has no confidence in its ability to get the money. In view of the fact that the case result has formed the Triple group occupies the company funds Facts, the company board of directors will in accordance with the law to the Triple group claims rights and interests, safeguard the company's legitimate And from the three quarterly report of the three companies, the company in the 2013 years ago three quarters of the operating income of 606 million yuan, and the listed company's shareholders deducted from the non-recurrent profit and loss of the net income of 16.92 million yuan, it can be seen that the amount of the case involved in the impact of the profit of the triple trading It is worth mentioning that the triple Trading Company and the Triple group of the various disputes can be said to be the same year Huang Guangyu acquisition of the legacy of the triple trading. Mr Huang spent 670 million yuan to buy a triple trading firm and once planned to build it as a "spokesperson" for Gome in a shares, but with Mr Huang in prison, the truth of the problems eventually became bewildering.