Pleasant loan response to U.S. law firm litigation will actively respond to protect the company’s ri-mentalist

Pleasant loan response US law firm litigation: will actively respond to protect the company’s rights and interests Sina fund exposure platform: letter Phi lag false propaganda, performance is lower than the same product for a long time, buy fund by pit how to do? Click on [I want to complain], Sina help you expose them! Reporter Li Hui reported in Beijing put forward several U.S. firm lawyers collective action, pleasant loans (NYSE:YRD) 31, in an "China business newspaper" said in an interview: known in the United States in August 26, 2016 the Central District of California Federal District Court for our company to submit the indictment. We believe that the accusation in this indictment has no basis, and is ready to actively respond to and safeguard the company’s rights and interests. In August 24th, after the supervision department issued the Interim Measures for the management of business activities of online lending intermediary agencies, the price fell 22% on the day of pleasant lending. According to media reports, the U.S. law firm Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, announced that due to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of pleasant loans, said on behalf of buying stock in pleasant loans during the period from May 11, 2016 to August 24th the investors filed a lawsuit against collective pleasant loans and executives. The lawsuit said, pleasant loans in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the period published a number of false or misleading statements, and did not open: 1) pleasant loans suffered fraud (and the consumer purchase loan products) is increasing; 2) China executive government issued anti fraud measures may cause negative effect of pleasant credit performance; 3) released on its performance, pleasant credit operation and development prospects of the information is false information, misleading, or lack of evidence. Pleasant credit believes that the above allegations have no basis and are ready to respond. Business model, in fact, shares in the United States were similar litigation, pleasant loan is not a precedent. Previously, including NetEase, New Oriental, 360, jumei.com, and the thunder, Youku potatoes and other companies, have encountered the U.S. law firm lawsuit. Brokerage analysts have pointed out that from the current China company suffered a lawsuit, the reasons and the following aspects: for example, did not disclose the relevant information may affect the company’s future financial data or risk; earnings calculation methods are issues related to fraud; involving commercial bribery and other illegal acts; internal management loopholes exist. Most of the lawsuits are due to inappropriate disclosure of information. The insiders pointed out, through the collective litigation profit is a class of the United States "the firm" business model: the specific ways of firms in all listed companies in each company to buy a shares, after the stock fell, the losses caused by the reasons, to become "first plaintiff" in the first time, if again on some other retail, can carry out collective action. Once investors get compensation, the firm can get the appropriate cost. And because the U.S. law does not need to grasp all the evidence before the prosecution, as long as there is doubt on some listed companies can be put forward, so this kind of litigation is more common in the U.S. capital market. A person in charge of a private equity agency in Beijing

宜人贷回应美律所诉讼:将积极应诉 维护公司权益 新浪基金曝光台:信披滞后虚假宣传,业绩长期低于同类产品,买基金被坑怎么办?点击【我要投诉】,新浪帮你曝光他们!   本报记者 李晖 北京报道   针对多家美国律师律师事务所提出的集体诉讼,宜人贷(NYSE:YRD)方面31日在接受《中国经营报》采访时表示:已知悉2016年8月26日在美国加州中区联邦地区法院针对我公司提交的起诉状。我们认为该起诉状中的指控没有任何依据,并准备积极应诉、维护公司权益。   8月24日,在监管部门出台《网络借贷信息中介机构业务活动管理暂行办法》后,宜人贷当日股价下跌22%。据媒体报道,随后美国律师事务所Bronstein,Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC宣布因宜人贷涉嫌违反证券交易法案,称已代表在2016年5月11日至8月24日期间购买宜人贷股票的投资者对宜人贷及其高管提起集体诉讼。   诉讼指出,宜人贷违反了1934年证券交易法案,在该期间内发表了一些虚假或具有误导性的声明,且并未公开:1)宜人贷遭遇的欺诈(与消费者购买其贷款产品相关)日益增多;2)执行中国政府出台的反欺诈措施可能对宜人贷业绩造成负面影响;3)宜人贷所发布的关于其业绩、运营和发展前景的信息为虚假信息,具有误导性,或缺乏事实依据。   宜人贷认为,上述指控没有任何依据,并准备应诉。   生意模式   事实上,中概股在美国遭类似诉讼,宜人贷并非先例。此前包括网易、新东方、360、聚美优品以及迅雷、优酷土豆等公司,就都曾遭遇过美国律所的诉讼。   有券商分析人士指出,从目前中国公司遭遇的诉讼看,原因多与以下几方面有关:例如未披露可能会影响公司未来财务数据或存在风险的相关信息;财报计算方法有问题涉及造假;涉及商业贿赂等违法行为;内部管理控制存在漏洞等。而其中大部分诉讼理由是信息披露不当。   而有业内人士指出,通过集体诉讼赚取利润是美国一类“原告律所”的生意模式:具体方式是律所在所有上市公司每家公司都买一股,在其股票跌了之后,以造成损失为理由,在第一时间去当“第一原告”,之后如果再号召一些其他散户,就可以进行集体诉讼。一旦投资者获得赔偿之后,律所可以得到相应费用。而由于美国法律并不需要在起诉前掌握所有证据,只要对某些上市公司有怀疑即可提出,因此这类诉讼在美国资本市场上较为常见。   一位北京私募机构的负责人告诉记者,中概股在刚进入每股市场之初遭遇类似事件较为常见,从硬性标准看中国现行的一些会计准则、财务算法与美国标准存在差异,另一方面,在文化认同等软性因素上也需要一定适应过程。   不过记者注意到,在8月24日《网络借贷信息中介机构业务活动管理暂行办法》出台后,摩根斯丹利针对此出具的报告称“宜人贷将从新政中获益。”该报告认为:由于宜人贷符合监管规定,我们相信新的措施将有利于宜人贷和类似的P2P平台领导企业,并将加速行业整合及不合规平台的退出。”   坏账率隐忧   不过由于网贷行业存在一定风险滞后性,宜人贷未来业绩仍不容易预测。   根据宜人贷8月10日公布的未经审计的二季度财报显示,二季度宜人贷净利润、总净营收同比增长均超过了100%,不过,坏账率仍是其目前需要面对的主要隐忧之一。   根据宜人贷招股说明书显示,目前宜人贷将不同信用程度的借款人分成A、B、C、D四个等级,给予不同的利息和交易费标准。而按照风险定价规则,目前D类客户风险等级最高,因此对应的手续费和年利率也最高,达到了28.2%和39.5%。而目前D类客户是宜人贷收入的重要来源,占到二季度宜人贷发放贷款的83.1%。   数据显示,宜人贷2016年第二季度A、B、C、D借款的坏账率分别为4.5%、4.5%、5.7%和4.2%,较2015年末的2.4%、1.3%、1.7%和1.4%大幅攀升。   而针对上述坏账率提升问题,宜人贷方面在接受《中国经营报》采访时表示,这一数据在预期之中。“宜人贷公布的数据与国内坏账率的统计口径不同,是全周期累积坏账率。贷款时间和坏帐率成正比,不会通过新增贷款量注水计算分母。而从长期趋势看,信批、风控以及反欺诈手段的不断强化更加关系到公司资产的健康。”   但需要注意的是,来自宜人贷托管银行广发银行数据显示,截至2016年7月31日,宜人贷风险备用金专户余额约为人民币81664万元,跟6月相比增加了约7270万元。   一位互联网金融分析人士认为,高企的风险准备金用于覆盖坏帐,将直接影响宜人贷的盈利水平。因此未来宜人贷通过何种方式来控制坏帐规模仍是其面临的较大挑战。 进入【新浪财经股吧】讨论相关的主题文章: