Xin Long holding was investigated by the SFC before and after the announcement of the stock price trend of strange question

September 12, 2013, Xin Long Holding (market, interrogation) received the SFC investigation notice. The next night, the company announced the world. There are two trading days when the SFC issued a case-by-case notice to investors to respond to the stock price. But in the public should not know that the company has been on the case of the two-day "vacuum", the company's share price seems to have been a sharp decline in advance. In this respect, there is an activist lawyer raised insider trading suspicion, and questioned why the company did not immediately announce, and set aside two days of "endless" vacuum period. Financial profit Po, the current savings rate of 1000% 12th notice 13th only notice in the evening of September 13, 2013, Xin Long holding issued a notice said the SFC received a case investigation notice, said the company in September 12, 2013, China Securities Regulatory Commission Hainan Supervision Bureau issued the "Investigation notice" (The number is: June survey Tong Word 1307th). "In accordance with the relevant provisions of the PRC securities law, the Hainan Supervisory authority of China Securities Regulatory Commission decided to investigate the company on the basis of the alleged violation of information disclosure." "Because the announcement is 13th after the close of the issue, Xin Long Holdings was investigated on the case of the two trading day after 14th to give investors reaction time." However, it is quite strange that the afternoon of September 12, 2013 and September 13, the shares of Xin Long holdings fell markedly, down 3.64% and 2.7% respectively, and in these two days, Shen Chengzhi rose 0.45% per cent, slightly 0.31%. 　　Within two days of not announcing the case immediately, the stock price deviated from the Shen and the textile manufacturing Industry index, and the first trading day, September 14, after the disclosure of major bad news, the shares rose 1.11%, which was puzzling. Activist lawyers questioned the disclosure was not timely for this, Wu Lijun, a prominent securities activist lawyer, told investment letters that the company should disclose the matter immediately after receiving an investigation notice from the SFC, but the firm chose to open it after two trading days, allowing the share price to be challenged by abnormal movements. 　　Mr Wu said that the delayed disclosure of information, the bizarre price movements, makes it easy to associate with insider trading, and has a negative impact on the good order of the securities market. "Listed Companies information disclosure management measures," 30th, the occurrence of the listed companies may have a greater impact on the securities and derivatives of the major events, investors have not been informed, the listed companies should immediately disclose, explain the cause of the incident, the current state and the possible impact. 11th of these provisions, the company suspected of violating the law is the right to investigate, or be subject to criminal penalties, major administrative penalties; Wu Lijun Lawyers believe that the management method is issued by the SFC, the text of a specific reference to the authority of the investigation of the documents, the listed companies should immediately disclose, "immediately" Two words of understanding should be embodied in Xinlong holdings in September 12, 2013The disclosure is made on the date of receipt of the survey notice. 　　SFC rules, SSE documents listen to who? The SFC's "Listed Companies Information disclosure management measures" on the public prosecution disclosure rate is very vague, what is "immediate"? 　　Wu Lijun Lawyer's interpretation is to be notified of the date of disclosure. In fact, the listing rules of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange allow listed companies to submit interim reports to SSE within two trading days. However, according to the law and regulations, Wu Lijun Lawyers believe that the documents of the SFC are higher than the SSE documents in terms of the legal effect, and the provisions of the Shenzhen Stock Service shall be deemed not to have legal effect if they are in conflict with the regulations of the SFC. 　　Therefore, the company did not immediately disclose the investigation by the SFC to investigate information, has been suspected of violating information disclosure requirements. Information disclosure problems in fact, Xin Long Holdings has been questioned the disclosure of the case is not timely only the letter of the issue of a small episode, the company was a case for investigation by the Securities and Futures Commission, precisely because of its letter to the issue. Looking back on the recent information disclosure of the company's illegal matters, the companies violate the requirements of accounting standards, the controlling shareholders on behalf of the tax payment for the loss of money in accordance with the provisions of the profits and losses, the virtual increase of 2012 net profit of nearly 4 million yuan. 　　The imaginary increase is close to the original 2012 net profit of 90%, the imaginary increase motive is suspected in order to avoid the continuous net profit is negative and the Beatles with Cap. 　　In addition, the media reported that Xin Long holdings in the 2011 Annual report in the external circulation of Hainan Changqing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. to pay the advance or borrowings, and did not disclose the implementation of the relevant contract, at present the matter has produced controversy and sued to the court awaiting the referee. The SFC may claim that the company has been formally investigated by the Securities and Futures Commission because of a series of illegal violations of information disclosed by Xin Long Holding, which has had a greater impact on the share price, and has caused some shareholders of Xin long holding to receive direct losses. According to the current law, Wu Lijun said that the injured shareholders of Xin Long holding may, after the Commission imposed administrative penalties on the company, spontaneously or entrust a lawyer to bring a civil lawsuit to the court for making a false statement of compensation.