Securities code: 002209 securities abbreviation: Guangzhou Tech-Long Packaging Machinery Co.Ltd(002209) Announcement No.: 2022-004 Guangzhou Tech-Long Packaging Machinery Co.Ltd(002209)
Announcement on the progress of major litigation
The company and all members of the board of directors guarantee that the information disclosed is true, accurate and complete without false records, misleading statements or major omissions.
Special tips:
1. The litigation stage of the case: the Tanzania high court rejected the application submitted by the company against the A-One execution application, and the jurisdiction objection procedure is still in the appeal stage.
2. The party status of listed companies: defendant
3. Amount involved: About US $4.8454 million
4. Impact on the profits and losses of listed companies: (1) the procedures related to jurisdiction objection in this lawsuit are still in the appeal stage and have not formed a final conclusion. (2) The amount involved in the ruling (about US $1032100) that the company applied to the high court of Tanzania for enforcement according to the arbitration award of China Trade Arbitration Commission has been recognized. The rejection of this application may lead to the deduction of the above creditor’s rights applied for enforcement in Tanzania, but the company can still apply for enforcement of the above CIETAC award in China and other regions. In addition, the company has no other assets available for execution in Tanzania. (3) As of the announcement date, China and Tanzania have neither concluded nor jointly participated in bilateral agreements and international treaties on mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments. At present, the company has not found any commercial cases in which Chinese courts recognize and enforce Tanzanian court judgments based on the principle of reciprocity. To sum up, it is not possible to accurately judge the specific impact of the event on the company’s profits in the current period or after the period. The final accounting treatment of this event and its impact on the relevant financial data of the company will be subject to the results confirmed by the accounting firm.
1、 Basic information of this lawsuit
Guangzhou Tech-Long Packaging Machinery Co.Ltd(002209) (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) received litigation materials such as subpoena and indictment issued by the high court of the United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as “the high court of Tanzania” or “the high court”) forwarded by Tanzanian lawyers on August 25, 2017. A-One products (hereinafter referred to as “Hong Kong Huayun”) was the defendant and filed a lawsuit in the high court. A-One filed a lawsuit to the High Court on the grounds of delayed delivery of some parts and non delivery of some parts of the parts signed with the company from 2012 to 2015 (involving a total order amount of about US $87800), asking the company to compensate the economic loss of US $4.8454 million, as well as relevant interest, litigation costs and other economic compensation. The Commercial Court of the high court has accepted the dispute over the sales contract. [the above is generally referred to as “commercial case”, case No.: Shi (2017) No. 105] because the business contract involved in the case is related to the content of the arbitration case filed by A-One in Beijing in January 2016, the arbitration case has been made an effective award by China International Economic and trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as “ITC”). Based on the analysis of the local lawyer acting in Tanzania and according to the suggestions of the lawyer, the company successively put forward relevant litigation procedures such as jurisdiction objection and amendment procedure to the Tanzania High Court and the court of appeal. Among them, the amendment procedure has been rejected and the jurisdiction objection procedure is still in the appeal stage.
2、 Overview of litigation and arbitration related to this litigation
(1) The contract disputes related to this lawsuit have been effectively ruled by the economic and Trade Commission
In January 2016, A-One, with the company and Hong Kong Huayun as the joint respondent, filed an arbitration application with the trade and Arbitration Commission, requiring the company to pay about US $18.1609 million in losses and compensation. In May 2017, the CIETAC issued the award of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission [(2017) zmzz No. 0676] (hereinafter referred to as the “arbitration award”), which included A-One’s payment of US $714400, interest and other expenses to the company and Hong Kong Huayun. Subsequently, the company immediately applied to the Tanzania high court for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.
On February 27, 2018, the company received the application for revoking the arbitration award served by Beijing Fourth intermediate people’s court, and A-One applied to Beijing Fourth intermediate people’s court for revoking the arbitration award. In April 2018, the company received the civil ruling [(2018) Jing 04 min te No. 4] from Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s court, which has rejected the application of A-one to revoke the ruling.
According to Chinese law, the above arbitration award is an effective award.
(2) Basic information of this lawsuit in Tanzania
During the company’s application to the high court of Tanzania for recognition and enforcement of the above arbitration award, A-One filed this lawsuit with the high court of Tanzania on July 27, 2017.
On May 22, 2019, the company received the written award [case No.: Shang Shi (2017) No. 342] issued by the high court of Tanzania, which recognized the validity of the arbitration award made by ITC and agreed to implement it. The company has entrusted an attorney hired locally to apply for the enforcement of the ruling.
In the judgment of commercial case No. 105 (2017), the high court made a judgment on this case. The company and Hong Kong Huayun jointly and respectively paid A-One a loss of US $4845362.509, as well as relevant interest and litigation costs.
On October 17, 2019, the company entrusted the local lawyer of Tanzania to apply to the high court of Tanzania for revocation of the judgment. On August 28, 2020, the company received the written judgment on the procedure of the company’s application for revocation of the judgment in commercial cases made by the high court of Tanzania, which rejected the company’s application for revocation of the judgment made on October 17, 2019.
On September 10, 2020, the company entrusted local lawyers in Tanzania to appeal the judgment rejecting the application for revocation of the ruling to the Tanzanian appeal court.
In October 2020, the company received the application for execution of the judgment of commercial cases submitted by A-One to the high court of Tanzania and the notice of the hearing of the High Court on the matter. The application for execution was jointly executed by the company and Hong Kong Huayun, and the principal and relevant interest of the application for execution of the judgment of commercial cases amounted to US $10.2399 million. At the same time, A-One provided the judgment [case No.: Shang Shi (2017) No. 342] made by the high court of Tanzania between the company and Hong Kong Huayun on May 22, 2019 as the clue of property enforcement, and ruled that A-One should pay the company and Hong Kong Huayun as the subject matter of Property Enforcement in the arbitration award approved by the judgment, Including A-One’s payment of USD 714400 to the company and Hong Kong Huayun, loan interest and other expenses of USD 317700, totaling about USD 1032100. On October 21, 2020, the company entrusted local lawyers in Tanzania to submit an application against A-One’s execution application to the high court of Tanzania.
For the above contents, please refer to the company’s publication in the securities times and cninfo.com (www.cn. Info. Com. CN) on April 8, 2016, June 13, 2016, May 27, 2017, August 29, 2017, February 28, 2018, April 11, 2018, May 24, 2019, October 11, 2019, October 30, 2019, September 1, 2020, September 12, 2020 and October 13, 2020 Announcement on major arbitration of the company (Announcement No.: 2016-036), announcement on progress of major arbitration of the company (Announcement No.: 2016-063, 2017-026), announcement on major litigation (Announcement No.: 2017-037), announcement on progress of litigation and major arbitration (Announcement No.: 2018-017) Announcement on progress of litigation (Announcement No.: 2018-021, 2019-014, 2019-027, 2019-033, 2020-041, 2020-043) and announcement on progress of major litigation (2020-045).
3、 Progress of the case
Recently, the company received the ruling made by the Tanzania High Court transmitted by the lawyer. The Tanzania high court rejected the application against the A-One execution application submitted by the company to the court on October 21, 2020.
4、 Other undisclosed litigation and arbitration matters
No. basic information of litigation / Arbitration Litigation / Arbitration Litigation / arbitration progress disclosure amount (10000 yuan) index
On May 8, 2017, the company sued the third party and won the first instance; Proposed by the other party
In the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute, the court of second instance is requested to appeal and revoke the original
1. The three persons stopped the judgment of 308.96 for trademark infringement and unfair competition of the company and sent it back for retrial; Once again, the other party does not apply to the act of dispute, compensate for the economic loss of 3 million yuan and reasonably file an appeal, which is being heard by the court.
The cost is 83900 yuan, and the legal cost is borne.
On June 21, 2019, the company filed a lawsuit with the trade and Arbitration Commission, and the company won the ruling, which is under review
2. In the case of applying for the dispute over the customer’s sales contract, the customer is requested to apply for execution at 218.80. It is not applicable to payment for goods and bearing arbitration fees.
On December 6, 2019, the company sued the customer for buying and selling. In the first instance, the company won the lawsuit and the court made a judgment
3. In the case of contract dispute, the customer was requested to pay for the goods and sued 10714. The other party paid 67000 yuan for the goods, which is not applicable to litigation costs. Case closed.
On August 21, 2020, family members of employees in the customer’s factory
4. Sue the company and its subsidiary Guangzhou Tech-Long Packaging Machinery Co.Ltd(002209) North America Co., Ltd. / the product liability infringement dispute of the company is not applicable in the trial.
On February 4, 2021, the company sued the customer for buying and selling, and the company won the first instance; Proposed by the other party
5. In the case of contract dispute, the court of second instance rejected the appeal of ordering the other party to pay 105.68 yuan for goods, and the court of second instance rejected the non applicability and interest and other expenses. Appeal and uphold the original judgment.
On March 9, 2021, the company filed a lawsuit with the trade and Arbitration Commission, and the company won the award after arbitration
6. For the case of contract dispute requesting the customer to pay for the goods, please make a decision on 261.18. Except for the arbitration fee, the payment for the goods is no longer applicable. It is required to make a decision on the customer’s payment for the goods and the arbitration fee. In full.
On October 12, 2021, the employee and the company ruled that the company would pay the employee compensation
7. For the dispute case, the compensation to Guangzhou Labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission is about 33200 yuan. The company does not apply to the Commission for arbitration. The Commission requested the company to pay for the termination of labor, and has filed a lawsuit with the court.
The compensation for the relationship is about 33200 yuan.
As of the disclosure date of this announcement, the company and its holding subsidiaries have no other major litigation and arbitration matters that should be disclosed but not disclosed.
5、 Countermeasures to be taken by the company
The company believes that the judgment and ruling of the high court of Tanzania on the above commercial cases lack factual basis, and the relevant matters involved in the commercial cases have been arbitrated and arbitrated by CIETAC, and the results of the arbitration award have been recognized by the high court of Tanzania; At the same time, the appeal procedure of the company’s objection to jurisdiction raised to the local appeal court through Tanzania’s attorney has not yet reached the final hearing conclusion. After receiving the ruling, the company has discussed and discussed with the lawyer team and will actively respond to it and fully safeguard the legitimate interests of the company.
6、 The possible impact of the litigation progress of this announcement on the company’s profits in the current period or after the period
At present, the amount involved in the ruling that the company applied to the high court of Tanzania for execution according to the arbitration award of China Trade Arbitration Commission (including the payment of 714400 US dollars payable by A-One to the company and Hong Kong Huayun company, interest on the payment and other expenses of about 317700 US dollars, totaling about 1032100 US dollars) has been recognized, and this application has been rejected, It may cause the above-mentioned creditor’s rights applied for enforcement in the country to be deducted in Tanzania, but the company can still apply for enforcement of the above-mentioned CIETAC ruling in China and other regions. In addition, the company has no other assets available for execution in Tanzania.
Due to the unstable business environment in Tanzania, the company’s sales in Tanzania has always adopted the agent sales mode. At present, the company has not invested in Tanzania and has no plans to invest in Tanzania in the future.
At the same time, the judgment of this commercial case was made by the high court of Tanzania. As of the announcement date, China and Tanzania have not concluded or jointly participated in the bilateral agreement and international treaty on mutual recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the court. At present, the company has not found any commercial cases in which Chinese courts recognize and enforce Tanzanian court judgments based on the principle of reciprocity. At the same time, as the relevant matters involved in this judgment have been arbitrated and adjudicated by CIETAC, the company believes that the Tanzania High Court has no jurisdiction over the commercial case.
The jurisdiction objection procedure related to this lawsuit is still in the appeal stage, and the case has not yet reached a final conclusion.
