The self media account “No. 1 real estate” was sued by Huang Hongyun and Jinke investment holding (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinke holding company) for publishing four articles involving Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company (hereinafter referred to as Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company) and its shareholder Huang Hongyun. The reason for the prosecution is that the four articles maliciously attacked and discredited the two plaintiffs and the Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company they actually control by fabricating facts and taking out of context.
The two plaintiffs requested the court to compensate for economic losses, loss of stock value and spiritual losses totaling more than 175 million yuan, delete four infringing articles and make a public apology.
Liu Shuchang (a pseudonym), the operator of “No. 1 real estate”, told surging news that the court of first instance held that the contents of the four articles involved in the case were obviously untrue, misleading and defamatory, and constituted an infringement on Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company. Two of them violated Huang Hongyun’s reputation right, but Huang Hongyun and Jinke holding company argued in their name that the premise that the reputation right of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company was infringed was not tenable and the court did not support it. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant deleted the two articles involving Huang Hongyun and issued an apology, compensated Huang Hongyun for 20000 yuan of spiritual damage and 450000 yuan of economic loss, and rejected other litigation claims of the two plaintiffs.
Liu Shuchang said that at present, they have filed an appeal.
Surging news learned from Jinke holding company on April 14 that the company and Huang Hongyun did not appeal. For the first instance judgment, the company respects the judgment result of the court. As for the appeal filed by “No. 1 real estate”, the company will respond normally.
As of February 17, 2022, the number of readings and comments on four articles involved in the case published by No. 1 real estate. For respondents
we released 4 articles related to gold and claimed 175 million
After leaving the media, Liu Shuchang, who operated the “No. 1 real estate” of the media, did not expect to incur a lawsuit with a claim of more than 175 million yuan due to the release of four articles involving Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company and its actual controller Huang Hongyun.
Surging news learned from Liu Shu’s strengths that on May 23, 2021, “No. 1 real estate” released the first article involved in the case entitled “the” secret table “in the annual report of panjiadi Jinke, which questioned the financial data of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) , especially the land reserve data.
In the article, the author Haige also mentioned that Huang Hongyun had not been executed since his divorce with his ex-wife in 2017, and was listed as the “executee” by Chongqing high court.
Surging news learned that Haige was also a journalist and had done public relations in real estate enterprises.
On May 25 of the same year, “No. 1 real estate” released the response to refute Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) , and the author Haige responded to ” Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) response to bond investors” in five parts.
Three days later, “No. 1 real estate” reissued “behind the exclusive Huang Hongyun insurance: ownership of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) 370 million shares”. In this article, the author claims that Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company’s earlier Information Disclosure Violation: 370 million shares were frozen by the court in July 2018 for a period of three years. According to the letter Phi rules of listed companies, if the equity of listed companies is frozen, it shall be announced. However, after checking the announcement of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) companies, no matter of judicial freezing of equity is found.
On May 31, 2021, “No. 1 real estate” released the fourth article for Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, “exclusive | facing 10 billion yuan equity division, Huang Hongyun may lose Jinke”. “A fund manager told No. 1 real estate that the reason why Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) did not clarify or disclose in detail the exact amount and equity share involved behind Huang Hongyun’s listing as the executee in the previous listing announcement is actually to consider issuing US dollar bonds,” the author Haige said in the article
According to the civil complaint submitted by Jinke holding company and Huang Hongyun to Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s court, the two plaintiffs believed that the above article maliciously attacked and discredited the plaintiff and the Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company actually controlled by the plaintiff, and widely spread it on the Internet by fabricating facts, taking it out of context and maliciously exaggerating, which not only caused extremely serious negative impact on the reputation of the plaintiff, And caused huge economic losses to the plaintiff.
The two plaintiffs said in the complaint that when the above article was published, it was the time when Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company issued bonds in the primary market. After being maliciously attacked, the “fragile” market was further expected to decline.
In addition, the article also led to a sharp drop in the price of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company’s bonds in the secondary market, which had fallen to about 95.5 yuan from the date of pricing and issuance on May 25, 2021 to the time of prosecution. As the shareholder and actual controller of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, the plaintiff received many inquiries and questions from investors, and the relevant financing was also urgently suspended. The above article not only has a serious impact on the plaintiff’s reputation, but also may lead to heavy resistance to the plaintiff’s bond financing in the future, and the consequences are incalculable.
According to the indictment, the author Haige also turned over the divorce dispute between Huang Hongyun and his ex-wife a few years ago and spread it rapidly on the Internet. Huang Hongyun’s private life has attracted extensive attention from people from all walks of life and is talked about with relish, which not only brings serious trouble to Huang Hongyun’s life, but also seriously infringes on his right to privacy.
The two plaintiffs then requested the court to order the defendant to stop the infringement, delete four infringing articles, and make a public apology to the two plaintiffs, so as to eliminate the influence, restore their reputation and clarify the truth for the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, the two plaintiffs requested the court to order the defendant Liu Shuchang to compensate the economic losses of the two plaintiffs by 99 million yuan; Compensate Jinke holding company for the loss of stock value of 4247633964 yuan; Compensate Huang Hongyun for the loss of stock value of 3284328762 yuan; Compensation for Huang Hongyun’s spiritual loss is 1 million yuan, totaling more than 175 million yuan.
The first official account of real estate issued 4 articles involving Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company in May 23, 2021 to May 31st. Screenshot of property 1
first instance compensation of 470000
For the litigation claims of Huang Hongyun and Jinke holding company, Liu Shuchang believes that it is “a little absurd”.
Haige, the author of the article, told surging news, “as a third party, I think it is difficult to recognize the relevant statements in the article as infringement.”
Haige said that the information and data in the article come from the financial reports of listed companies, official media, industry media, information disclosed by state organs or regulatory authorities, as well as third parties with high credibility in the market, such as tianyancha, Kerui real estate research, research reports of industry institutions, etc.
“For example, if the article involves the disclosure of insiders, it will verify whether it is consistent with the public information according to the information provided by insiders. For example, the fact that Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) there are 370 million shares disclosed in the article that were frozen by the judiciary in 2018 is confirmed based on the Mutual Corroboration of the information provided by the informant and the information such as Tianyan check and the announcement of listed companies.”
For his writing style, Haige believes that “this is similar to the work of analysts. To infer a certain trend or possibility based on confirmed data or public information, whether the media or government departments will do it. It can’t be said that it hasn’t happened yet, it’s speculation or even infringement.”
In the first instance, Liu Shuchang argued that he was only the provider of the platform, not the author of the article. When accepting the manuscript, he had fulfilled the obligation of reasonable review, and he and the platform did not break the law. As a defendant, he did not commit infringement and had no subjective infringement malice. He should not bear tort liability such as deleting text and apologizing.
Secondly, the stock price decline itself is affected by multiple factors. Before the release of the article, the stock price of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company fell all the way, and the loss cannot be reflected by the stock price on the trading day two weeks after the release of the article. The plaintiff has no fact that his reputation has been damaged, and there is no economic loss caused by reputation damage. The defendant shall not bear the responsibility of restoring his reputation and compensating for mental and economic losses. In addition, the article involved in the case involves Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, and Jinke holding company is not qualified as the subject of prosecution.
According to the claims of both parties, the court of first instance concluded that the focus of dispute in this case is: first, whether Liu Shuchang’s behavior constitutes infringement; 2、 Whether Jinke holding company and Huang Hongyun can claim that Liu Shuchang infringes upon the reputation right of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company in which they hold shares as the right subjects; 3、 Liu Shuchang’s civil liability in this case.
The court held that the Civil Code stipulates that legal persons and unincorporated organizations enjoy the right of name, reputation and honor. In the “mind table” in the annual report of panjiadi Jinke, the financial statements of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company are called “water injection” in many places; “Huang Hongyun may lose Jinke in the face of 10 billion yuan equity division” said that “behind the concealment of information: or due to the need of issuing bonds”; “Refuting the bond market response of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) ” said that “it is not negligence to store the soil of the construction area and package it into the total saleable area, which is fraud. To some extent, investors can sue Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company” and other obvious contents of speculation and insulting the reputation right of legal persons.
In addition, Huang Hongyun may lose Jinke due to the equity split of 10 billion yuan, which states that “Huang Hongyun’s divorce lawsuit involves not only 370 million shares Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) , but also up to 10 billion yuan, not just 2.3 billion yuan”.
The article “behind the success of the exclusive | Huang Hongyun insurance: involving the ownership of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) 370 million shares” said that ” Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company’s announcement after media coverage is suspected of misleading investors and the public”. The content of the article involved in the case is obviously untrue and constitutes misleading and slander, affecting the social evaluation of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) . The relevant contents of the four articles involved in the case constitute an infringement on Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company.
In the first instance, the court found that there were slanders and insults against Huang Hongyun in the contents of the article “behind the exclusive Huang Hongyun insurance: involving the ownership of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) 370 million shares” and “the exclusive Huang Hongyun may lose Jinke due to the 10 billion yuan equity division”. For example, “it seems that Huang Hongyun is only one step away from becoming an ‘old Lai’. After all, he has been Lai for three years; money may be a small thing, but for Huang Hongyun, the actual controller of the company, it represents the loss of the voice of the company, which is fatal. For a middle-aged and elderly man, power is another aphrodisiac for him”, and so on. The above facts are not confirmed by relevant facts.
At the same time, the divorce agreement and civil mediation between Huang Hongyun and his ex-wife involve personal privacy. Even if Huang Hongyun and his ex-wife, as public figures or because they involve Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, should be disclosed to the public in accordance with laws and regulations and the regulatory requirements of listed companies, they should also be disclosed by Huang Hongyun, Tao Hongya or Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company rather than outsiders. The article involved in the case disclosed other people’s marital status and specific property information to the society through the Internet, which violated Huang Hongyun’s right to privacy. Moreover, the article describes that the divorce agreement between Huang Hongyun and his ex-wife stipulates that “both parties agree to split the equity according to their respective equity proportion, and split the target shares according to the proportion of 51% and 49% within 8 to 12 months after signing the agreement” is not the content of the divorce agreement, and the content of the article is seriously untrue. The two exclusive articles violated Huang Hongyun’s right of reputation.
However, the court held that the precondition for Jinke holding company and Huang Hongyun to claim that the reputation right of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company was infringed in their own name was not tenable, and the court did not support their relevant litigation claims.
The court ruled that because the two exclusive articles violated Huang Hongyun’s right of reputation, the court supported his claim that the article should be deleted and that he should be apologized and compensated for mental losses. Although the other two articles infringed upon the reputation right of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, they did not involve Huang Hongyun’s personal reputation right. Therefore, the court did not support Huang Hongyun’s claim for these two articles.
As for the part of compensation for property losses, the court comprehensively considered the objective impact on the financing and stock price of Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company due to the publication of the articles involved in the case, the evidential capacity and evidential situation of both parties, the defendant’s fault, the shares held by Huang Hongyun and Jinke holding company in Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company, the number of comments on the articles involved in the case, the network transmission degree of the defendant’s micro signal operation and other factors, and determined that Huang Hongyun’s economic loss was 450000 yuan, The defendant shall be liable for compensation and will not support Huang Hongyun’s other claims exceeding the amount.
The court finally concluded that Liu had not fulfilled the obligation to audit the articles published in WeChat official account, and the fact that Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) and Huang Hongyun had lost their reputation rights should bear the corresponding liability for compensation and remove their reputation. Since Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company did not sue, it only dealt with the infringed part of Huang Hongyun. Accordingly, the court ruled that Liu Shuchang deleted two exclusive articles and issued apology information after the judgment took effect; Compensation for Huang Hongyun’s spiritual solace of 20000 yuan; Compensate Huang Hongyun 450000 yuan for economic losses; Reject all litigation claims of Jinke holding company and other litigation claims of Huang Hongyun.
during the appeal, he was sued by Jinke for reputation dispute
“After the judgment of the first instance, we have appealed. At present, the Chongqing High Court has filed a case, and the hearing time has not been determined yet.” Liu Shuchang said.
The appeal petition submitted by Liu Shuchang’s lawyer to Chongqing High Court shows that his appeal request includes revoking the judgment of deleting infringing articles and making an apology, compensating Huang Hongyun for spiritual comfort and economic losses in the judgment of first instance, directly changing the judgment, rejecting the appellee’s claim or sending the case back for retrial; The litigation costs of the first and second instance shall be borne by the appellee.
According to the appeal petition, firstly, the articles involved in the case do not constitute infringement, and the articles involved in the case are confirmed by relevant facts. There is no serious misrepresentation, and the standard of “basic truth” has been reached. The personal comments and opinions expressed in the article belong to the exercise of the right to freedom of speech conferred by the constitution. As the actual controller / shareholder of the listed company, the appellee should have greater tolerance for this. The court of first instance only intercepted a single word and held that the article involved in the case constituted insult and slander, which was a mistake in fact finding.
At the same time, the appellant has fulfilled the reasonable obligation of examination and should not bear the liability for tort compensation. The appellant never charged any fee for publishing relevant articles on the platform, and did not maliciously distort the facts for the purpose of profit. Instead, he expected to promote the presentation of the truth of the event through public opinion on issues related to public interests, make up for the unity of public access to information and the limitation of the ability to integrate data, and promote the possessor, profiteer and the party with advantages in resources of the capital market to be complete and reliable under the supervision of public opinion Timely information disclosure is also the basic requirement of Shenzhen stock exchange for listed companies and their major shareholders. Meanwhile, the appellant did not modify the content of the article or add any false information. Subjectively, there is no intention of infringement and no fault. Publishing articles is to exercise the right of public opinion supervision of the general public, which belongs to the legal exemption.
The appellant operates “first estate” is not a well-known Internet public official account, with a small number of fans. There is almost no comment in the case, which shows that it has not aroused social concern, and will not lead to a reduction in the social evaluation of the appellant. The appellee has not suffered serious mental damage due to the infringement of reputation right, and his request for spiritual solace should not be supported. Even if it is supported, the compensation amount of 20000 yuan is too high and should be adjusted. The appellee’s claim for damages is unsubstantiated and should not be supported. Even if the court of first instance upheld its claim for compensation, considering the influence of the appellant’s official account number, the amount of compensation for the case is 450 thousand yuan, which is obviously too high and should be reduced.
Surging news learned from Jinke holding company on April 14 that the company and Huang Hongyun did not appeal after the first instance judgment. At present, the appeal period of the case has expired. For the first instance judgment, the company respects the judgment result of the court. As for the appeal filed by “No. 1 real estate”, the company will respond normally.
Liu Shuchang said that during the appeal, he learned from the Internet that Jinke Property Group Co.Ltd(000656) company sued him, “I haven’t received the indictment now, but I saw the opening announcement on the Internet. The opening time is May 23, and I don’t know the specific content. I only know it’s a dispute over the right of reputation”.
