Source: Visual China

Reporter丨Chen Jing

The sensational Everbright Securities MPS incident has the latest developments.

On June 11, Everbright Securities issued an announcement to disclose the MPS matters and follow-up situation of the wholly-owned subsidiary Everbright Capital.

The announcement shows that JINXINNC. (Cayman Baptist), the subject of overseas project transactions of Shanghai Baptist Fund, filed fraudulent false statements and breach of tax commitments with individuals and institutions such as RICCARDO SILVA ANDREA RADRZZANI, the original seller shareholder of MPS, in the High Court of England and Wales. The litigation claims that the amount involved is approximately US$661 million (approximately RMB 4.2 billion).

Everbright Securities said that the company’s business operations are currently normal.

Originating from MPS, China Merchants Bank and Huarui Bank invested 3.2 billion in total

What is the MPS project? How did Everbright Securities step on the thunder?

The matter dates back to four years ago. This series of disputes are all related to the “Storm” of the British sports copyright company MP&Silva (the “MPS” project) acquired by Baptist Fund, the executive partner of Everbright Baptist in 2016.

Everbright Baptist, a subsidiary of Everbright Capital, serves as the executive partner of Baptist Fund.

In 2016, Everbright Baptist and Baofeng Investment and Shanghai Qunchang launched the Baptist Fund with a fund size of 10 billion and a total maturity of 5 years. According to Tianyan Check, Baptist Fund has a total of 14 investors, of which China Merchants Wealth holds 53.82%, and Everbright Capital holds 1.15%. The executive partners of Baptist Fund are Shanghai Qunchang Financial Services Co., Ltd. and Everbright Baptist Hui, Baofeng (Tianjin) Investment Management Co., Ltd. Huarui Bank and Shenzhen Hengxiang are also partners of Baptist Fund.

In May 2016, Baptist Fund raised 5.2 billion yuan to complete the acquisition of 65% of MPS. MPS used to be the world’s top sports media company, with business covering more than 200 countries and regions around the world, with more than 90 global event property rights, and more than 30 event rights agency partners. LeTV Sports is its largest partner in China. Against LeEco, the Storm Group at the time also aimed at the sports sector, hoping to formally enter the sports industry.

Among the 5.2 billion yuan raised by the Baptist Fund, Everbright Capital contributed 60 million yuan as an inferior investor. The priority investor China Merchants Bank invested 2.8 billion yuan, and Huarui Bank invested 400 million yuan through Aijian Trust; other investors included Zhaoyuan Yongjin invested 600 million yuan, Shenzhen Hengxiang, Baofeng Department and Everbright Capital jointly invested billions .

In October 2017, MPS lost to rival IMG in the Serie A international copyright bid. In the same year, BeIN Sports took away the Ligue 1 copyright from MPS. Since then, MPS has been losing ground in the sports copyright market. Due to the inability to pay copyright fees, some major copyright owners terminated their contracts with MPS early and even took them to court. In October 2018, with the bankruptcy and liquidation order of the High Court of the United Kingdom, MPS became history. The 5.2 billion yuan investment was “flooded” and the investors encountered Waterloo.

Since then, many partners of the Baptist Fund have demanded compensation from the Everbright Department and the Baofeng Department.

In July 2019, Feng Xin, the actual controller of Baofeng Group, was arrested. Baofeng was in deep crisis and could not protect itself. Everbright Capital has become the main claim target of all investors. Everbright Securities’ 2018 annual report shows that the stakeholders of the Baptist Fund’s priority limited partners have presented a letter of replenishment stamped by Everbright Capital, promising that if the priority limited partners cannot exit, they will be funded by the inferior ones. People Everbright Capital assumes the corresponding obligation to make up the difference.

Everbright Capital was sued or arbitrated by China Merchants Bank, Zhaoyuan Yongjin and Huarui Bank, and Shenzhen Hengxiang, and the amount of “debt collection” involved exceeded 4.1 billion yuan. Among them, the amount involved in China Merchants Bank’s lawsuit against Everbright Capital is approximately 3.489 billion yuan, and the amount involved in arbitration applications for Huarui Bank and Shenzhen Hengxiang is 452 million yuan and 168 million yuan respectively. The arbitration initiated by Zhaoyuan Yongjin involved an amount of 100,000 yuan.

On May 31, 2019, Everbright Securities disclosed that the case was at the stage of filing and acceptance, and the impact on Everbright Capital could not be accurately estimated for the time being.

After the MPS incident, Everbright Securities also experienced a series of executive changes.

In April 2019, Xue Feng resigned as chairman and director of Everbright Securities, and Party Secretary Yan Jun replaced Xue Feng as chairman of the company. In January 2020, Liu Qiuming, the original chairman of CM Investment, was newly appointed as the president of Everbright Securities. The former president Zhou Jiannan resigned due to personal reasons. Several senior executives, including the chief risk officer, compliance director, business director and directors of Everbright Securities, have also changed.

Everbright Securities is also constantly trying to hold Storm Group responsible. In April 2020, Everbright Securities disclosed the result of the first instance of the MPS case. The Shanghai Financial Court ruled that Everbright Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Everbright Securities, should pay approximately 3.116 billion yuan to China Merchants Bank and interest from May 6, 2019 to the date of actual settlement. Loss, and bear part of the litigation fees, property preservation fees and other expenses; pay the investment principal of 400 million yuan to Huarui Bank, pay the investment income from January 1, 2018 to the date of actual performance, and bear litigation fees, preservation fees, etc. Currently, Everbright Capital has filed an appeal, and the relevant litigation is still in the process of performing judicial procedures.

MPS risks are fully accrued, and China Everbright is stepping out of the haze

Following a sharp rebound in performance in 2019, Everbright Securities has achieved a three-fold increase in net profit in 2020.

According to the company’s annual performance report released on March 25, the company achieved a total of 15.866 billion yuan in operating income in 2020, an increase of 58% year-on-year, and a net profit of 2.334 billion yuan attributable to the parent, an increase of 311% year-on-year.

However, dragged down by the MPS incident, Everbright Capital has suffered three consecutive years of performance losses in 2020, with losses of 1.634 billion yuan and 2.909 billion yuan in 2018 and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, Everbright Capital had total assets of 2.980 billion yuan, net assets of 2.442 billion yuan, and losses of 2.069 billion yuan.

Everbright Securities accrued a liability of 1.55 billion yuan for MPS matters in 2020. In the past two years, it has accrued liabilities of 3.011 billion yuan. Up to now, Everbright Securities has accrued liabilities of 4.565 billion yuan for MPS. In the MPS incident, the largest amount of funds contributed by the stakeholders of the two priority partners-China Merchants Bank and Huarui Bank. According to the announcement on the judgment of the first instance disclosed by Everbright Securities, in addition to the priority principal, a certain amount of interest must be paid. However, as far as the current situation of Everbright Securities’ accrued accrual is concerned, Everbright Securities has made a full accrual for this matter.

Everbright Securities stated that since the occurrence of the MPS incident, the company has deeply analyzed the problems reflected in the risk event, focusing on comprehensively recreating the style from improving the risk management system, achieving full coverage of risk management, implementing the responsibilities of relevant personnel at all levels, strengthening professional management and expert decision-making, etc. Control compliance system. The company has carried out a series of risk investigations and rectifications, comprehensively strengthened the management and control of subsidiaries, further built a sound and prudent risk culture, improved the risk compliance system, and improved risk prevention and resolution capabilities. Judging from the 2020 annual results announcement disclosed by Everbright Securities, the company has stepped out of the haze of MPS risk events, the risks have been basically cleared, and the company’s development will become more healthy.

EU funds for holiday flyers Aid for Condor declared null and void

As of: 06/09/2021 1:00 p.m.

The EU court annulled a decision of the EU Commission that allowed German aid for the Condor airline. Ryanair had sued against the release. Ryanair has achieved a success against state corona aid for the German airline Condor before the EU court (EGG). The judges overturned the EU Commission’s decision to approve the aid. The decision of the Brussels authority was not sufficiently justified, said the court in Luxembourg. In practice, however, this initially has no consequences: the effect of the declaration of invalidity was suspended until the EU Commission has passed a new decision. This means that Condor does not have to repay the money immediately.

Loan of 550 million euros

Germany had registered the aid in favor of Condor in Brussels in April 2020. This involved two government-secured loans with reduced interest rates in the amount of 550 million euros. The background was damage caused by the cancellation or postponement of flights due to travel restrictions in the corona pandemic. The low-cost airline Ryanair complained, among other things, of violations of the free movement of services and filed a lawsuit against the release.

Connection with bankruptcy proceedings?

At Condor, the situation had worsened due to the bankruptcy of the parent company Thomas Cook in autumn 2019, which preceded the corona crisis. The airline was only able to continue working with rescue aid of 380 million euros, which was also approved by the EU. The insolvency proceedings initiated at the time had to be extended after the outbreak of the Corona crisis because the new owner, the Polish aviation company PGL, had jumped off. The 550 million euros in government aid also included costs that resulted from the extension of the insolvency proceedings at Condor. Ryanair had argued that the commission had not explained why it had even included the extended insolvency period when calculating the damage to Condor from the corona crisis. The Condor case is one of many in which Ryanair is taking action against state corona aid for competitors. So far, the plaintiff has succeeded in some cases but not in others. (Case T 665/20)

The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Karl Racine’s office, accuses Amazon of controlling nearly 70% of e-commerce sales, leading to high consumer prices. Holding nearly 70% of commercial sales, Amazon is sued against antitrust in the US The complaint was received by the District of Columbia Attorney’s Office, which said: “This online retail platform benefits and is protected by Amazon’s anti-competitive business practices. That leaves consumers vulnerable. do not have access to the best products at the lowest cost”. In addition, Amazon also caused prices across the entire online retail market to increase virtual prices for products sold on Amazon.com as well as on competitors’ online retail sales platforms. Also in the lawsuit, the e-commerce group used methods to prevent third-party sellers on its platform from offering products at lower prices than competitors. Amazon also responded to AFP that sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in Amazon’s stores, and this response contradicts comments made by the Justice Department. This e-commerce group also prides itself on offering the lowest prices with the best selection unlike any other online platform, so Amazon reserves the right not to attach deals to products that don’t have it. competitive price for customers. This lawsuit has Amazon possibly forced to charge higher prices on its e-commerce platform. The lawsuit is intended to block Amazon from anticompetitive practices as well as claims for damages and other penalties. According to eMarketer, Amazon’s e-commerce market share in the US in 2020 is 39.8% and will increase in 2021 to 44.1%, equivalent to the amount of 367.19 billion USD. According to statistics, Amazon’s profit in the first 3 months of 2021 reached 8.1 billion USD, 3 times higher than the same period in 2020. In 2020, the US Federal and State Antitrust Enforcement Agency filed lawsuits against Facebook and Google for allegedly dominating illegal markets.

Accordingly, the group is asking Apple to return money to UK customers, with about 19.6 million people will be compensated a total of 1.5 billion pounds (equivalent to 2.1 billion USD). They believe that the US technology company has a monopoly when the App Store is the only “door” to download many applications to iPhone and iPad. The application emphasizes that after 13 years, the App Store is still the only source for Apple devices to access applications, proving that the company has been selfish, charging login fees and using this mechanism unfairly. They claim this is proprietary behavior. According to the lawsuit, Apple receives about 30% of the cost of purchasing an app. Apple, for its part, calls this a planned lawsuit and shouldn’t have happened. The company insists it is committed to its customers and that the App Store has greatly benefited the UK creative economy.
In addition, Apple is currently facing many legal challenges related to exclusivity when using the App Store because of a lawsuit for the same reason by Epic Games – the maker of the famous Fortnite game. according to iMore

Expert Kent, a lecturer at King’s College, University of London, believes that Apple has a monopoly when the App Store is the only door to download many applications to iPhone and iPad. App Store is always accused of charging too much According to this lecturer after 13 years, the App Store is still the only source for Apple devices to access applications, reflecting the company’s selfish “guarding” of the entrance to the world of applications, charging subscription fees. import and use “unfairly” and this is proprietary behavior. According to the lawsuit, Apple receives about 30% of the cost of purchasing an app. Apple has denied these allegations and said it would be open to discussing “the commitment to consumers and the many benefits the App Store has brought to the UK’s innovation economy”. The company also compared the App Store to other digital marketplaces and reiterated that the majority of developers don’t pay Apple for anything because 84% of the apps on the App Store are free. Last month, the European Union (EU) officially accused Apple of relying on the App Store, which has gradually eliminated competitors in the field of streaming (streaming). In March, UK competition authorities also launched an investigation into Apple related to the App Store.

Zhang Yazhou made a riot at the Tesla booth in April and shouted that “Tesla broke the brake”. Photo: Global Times. According to the The Beijing News Yazhou requested a compensation of 50,000 yuan, about 7,700 USD, to compensate for the mental damage caused by the incident to herself and her family. The lawsuit was filed in a court in China’s Henan province on May 6. The story originates from an accident that happened in February this year, when Yazhou’s father was driving a Tesla Model 3, while Yazhou was sitting in the passenger seat. An unexpected incident occurred, the car crashed into the vehicle ahead, injuring Yazhou’s father and hospitalized. Yazhou asserted that the faulty brake system led to the accident, and carried out a series of different demonstrations, even looking to the riotous Shanghai Auto Show at the Tesla booth. Tesla is facing many complaints about customer service in China. Photo: Reuters. Tesla then released the car’s black box data, saying that in about 30 minutes before the crash, the car accelerated at times to nearly 120 km / h, braking 40 times and significantly reduced speed. degrees at the moment before the crash. Tesla doubted the incident might stem from Yazhou’s father speeding the car and not keeping a safe distance from the car in front. Yazhou of course disagrees with this conclusion of Tesla and thinks that the company may have interfered with the data to put false information. Although Tesla had offered to ask another independent unit to check the data from the vehicle, Yazhou refused. Tao Lin – Tesla’s vice president of global operations, said in a statement on April 19 that every action of Zhang Yazhou was “professional”, as if someone was behind to support her. This entire scheme is intended to undermine Tesla’s reputation. This is also the reason for Yazhou client’s decision to sue Ms. Tao Lin. In addition, Tesla Shanghai and Tesla Beijing are also on the list to be sued. In addition to the cost of compensation, Yazhou also asked all three of the aforementioned individuals and organizations to immediately stop the accusations, write letters of apology and post their apologies publicly on the national media. The cost of the lawsuit must also be paid by Tesla’s side. In the lawsuit, Zhang Yazhou also said that Tesla “should have actively negotiated and handled” product quality issues “with a demand and customer-focused attitude.” Instead, she accused the automaker of “making false statements to create a negative image” of her.

Icon of Tik Tok video-sharing application on smartphone screen in Paris, France. Photo: AFP / VNA Former UK children’s commissioner Anne Longfield, and the law firm Scott + Scott, on behalf of children under the age of 13 in the UK and 16 years old in the European Economic Area (EEA) filed a lawsuit against TikTok and the public. parent company ByteDance. The lawsuit alleges TikTok and ByteDance violate the data protection laws of children (GDPR) of the UK and the European Union (EU) and deceive parents about the extent of personal information leakage of the children. kids when they use this app. TikTok’s behavior is believed to affect more than 3.5 million children in the UK. In a statement dated April 21, Ms. Longfield emphasized “TikTok is an extremely popular social media platform that helps children keep in touch with their friends during the past extremely difficult year. Behind the hilarious songs, choreography challenges and the lip-sync movement is something much more damaging. According to her, parents as well as children have the right to personal information, including phone number, physical location and illegally collected videos. The former UK children’s commissioner stated that the lawsuit is intended to force TikTok to “terminate data collection”, and to ask the platform to remove any personal information that has been “illegally processed”. when kids use this app. The lawsuit states that since May 2018, every child using TikTok, regardless of having an account or possible privacy settings, has been illegally collected by ByteDance through TikTok for the benefit of Unidentified third parties. The lawsuit also mentioned recent hefty fines for TikTok in the US and South Korea following cases of child data leaks. In response, TikTok insists the app has “robust policies, procedures and technologies to help protect all users, especially teen users”. TikTok will strongly protect itself, while asserting that privacy and safety are always the “top priority” of this platform.

French luxury brand Chanel

Lost in the “trademark war” with Huawei

According to Reuters, this trademark lawsuit originated in 2017. At that time, Huawei applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the registration and protection of its computer hardware trademarks. The logo of the trademark is two intertwined half rings.

But Chanel objected to this. According to the report, Chanel said that the design of Huawei’s trademark is similar to the trademark of Chanel registered in France, that is, the design of two half-rings intertwined horizontally. According to reports, Chanel’s trademark is used on its perfumes, cosmetics, jewelry, leather goods and clothing and other products.

In 2019, the European Union Intellectual Property Office rejected Chanel’s objections, saying that the two trademarks were not similar, and there was no possibility of causing public confusion.

But it’s not over yet. The report mentioned that the French luxury goods group subsequently filed an appeal with the European Union General Court in Luxembourg.

On April 21, 2021 local time, the court decided to reject the appeal.

“The graphic trademarks in dispute are not similar.” The court ruling said, “In particular, Chanel’s trademark curve is more rounded, thicker, and the direction is horizontal, while the Huawei trademark is vertical. Therefore, the EU General Court concluded. The conclusion is that there is a difference between the two.”

The report also mentioned that Chanel can appeal this judgment to the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice.

According to Reuters, the trademark dispute highlights how luxury brands are trying to protect their iconic logos and trademarks, which usually symbolize luxury, fashion and uniqueness.

Seeing this logo, some netizens said that this logo is very similar to the initial letter H of Huawei, and not similar to the logo of Chanel.

Netizen: Chanel can sue paperclip

“It’s better to say that black and white are used, and the similarity is 100%.”

“Trouble Chanel not to rub Huawei’s enthusiasm”

“I thought it was a power socket,

I never thought Chanel would go there.”

“Chanel can sue paper clips”

Source: Shangguan News integrated from China Mobile, World Wide Web, Observer, etc.

“Shen” reported hot commodities

(Click on the picture to enter the corresponding product interface to purchase)

Gökçe is the owner of the Nusr-Et Steakhouse restaurant chain with branches in many countries around the world. Gökçe became famous after a clip of his expressive salt spraying went viral on Twitter and Instagram.

Salt Bae “Holy Salt” performs his signature salt sprinkle show at the Nusr-Et steakhouse in Manhattan. (Photo: Cole Wilson / The New York Times)

According to the New York Post, the extremely famous male chef on this social network is currently caught in a $ 5 million lawsuit due to copyright infringement by American artist William Hicks.

Specifically, William Hicks accused Salt Bae of using his work for commercial purposes without his permission.

Previously, in September 2017, Salt Bae “holy salt” hired William Hicks and colleague Josphe Iurato to make a mural of him in the famous “salt sprinkling” pose.

A painting by painter William Hicks and his colleague Josphe Iurato of Salt Bae in the famous “salt spray” pose. (Photo: NYPost)

Until early 2020, Hicks discovered that Gökçe and the male chef’s company used the image on a variety of products such as digital signage, restaurant menus, napkins, paper bags and spices. without permission from 2 original artists.

In February 2021, Gökçe launched a special line of spices for baking, and continued to use images created by the duo artists Hicks and Iurato.

Salt Bae was accused of using the work of painter William Hicks for commercial purposes without his permission. (Photo: New York Times)

“The defendants unilaterally adapt and distribute the derivative versions of the original works for display at the Nusr-et steak restaurants in many cities and countries such as Abu Dhabi, Ankara, Etiler, Mykonos and Bodrum Yalikavak Marina, “the allegation said.

Previously, Hicks sent a letter asking chef Nusr-et Gökçe to stop using the original painting in off-agreement products in April 2020.

Salt Bae “Holy Salt” became famous after the clip recording his expressive salt spraying scene went viral on Twitter, Instagram. (Photo: JERRITT CLARK / GETTY IMAGES)

However, Salt Bae and the company still “doubled the scope of violations, intentionally using images in other locations”.