A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd.(fka APWR)

[dingocub]

Nice to see APWR Website Renewed -

You don't do that unless you plan on popping your head out of the sand sometime in the future..

Tidbits..

- Most of the job offerings I see for A-Power subs now seem to have a close date of Oct 2014.

They seemed to be getting sued a lot...

- They just wrapped another Arbitration Suit on 11/16/13.. This one between AVIC HUIDE and Liaoning Hi-tech and Lucky Wind...

Hard to translate Outcome.. Seems like it was dismissed.. Any thoughts understanding this translation..

http://www.lawxp.com/case/c3487373.html

Case Title : Aviation appellant Huide Wind Power Engineering Co., Ltd. with the appellee Liaoning Hi-Tech Energy Group Ltd. , the third person of First Instance Ruixiang Wind Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. Shenyang guarantee contract dispute
Case: civil cases >> contract gestio , unjust enrichment contract dispute disputes >>
Trial institutions : the Supreme People's Republic of China and famous instruments : No. 69 ( 2013 ) Min Er Zhong Zi
Instrument types : civil ruling concluded date :2013 -11-16
Proceedings : the second trial staff : High Ke ; Liujing Chuan ; Shiguang Lei

Supreme People's Republic of China
Civil ruling
No. 69 ( 2013 ) Min Er Zhong Zi

The appellant ( plaintiff in ) : AVIC Huide Wind Power Engineering Co., Ltd. .

Legal representative: Sunxu Ming , general manager of the company .

Appellee ( defendant first instance ) : Liaoning Hi-Tech Energy Group Limited.

Legal representative: Zhang Yuqiang , the company's general manager.

Attorney: Bo , Beijing days as Law Firm.

Attorney: Long -li , Beijing days as Law Firm.

First instance the third person : Shenyang Ruixiang Wind Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. .

Legal Representative: Lu Jinxiang , the company chairman.

Appellant AVIC Huide Wind Power Engineering Co., Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as Aviation Company ) with the appellee Liaoning Hi-Tech Energy Group Co., Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as High-Tech Company ) , the first trial a third person Shenyang Ruixiang Wind Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as Ruixiang company ) guarantee contract dispute case , refused to accept the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court ( 2012 ) Liao Min Er Chu Zi No. 5 civil ruling , this Court appeal. Court formed a collegial panel conducted a hearing on the case law , the trial has ended.

The plaintiff sued the company , said AVIC to Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court: July 23, 2010 , the Company entered into with a third party Ruixiang " supply contract " agreed to provide 100 sets of wind turbines to a third party , each set 13 million yuan . " Supply contract " in the agreement, disputes arising from the performance of the contract occurred in Shenyang arbitration. December 24, 2010 , AVIC signed with Ruixiang " Supplemental Agreement " , agreed to pay the first 12 sets of issues , " Supplemental Agreement " agreed to submit the dispute to fulfill Beijing Arbitration Commission. June 16, 2011 , AVIC company , Hi-Tech company Ruixiang Company and unanimously adopted " Minutes" , the same day, Hi-Tech company issued " guarantee letter " Ruixiang company's commitment to pay joint liability guarantee. As of July 25, 2011 , AVIC Ruixiang company paid a total of 90 million yuan loan , debt 95,696,000 yuan , requesting an order -Tech Company to perform its obligations under the " guarantee letter " item, payment to Aviation Company 95,696,000 million.

Tech Company argued that the defendant first instance : 1 , Hi-Tech company issued a " letter of guarantee " is invalid, it should not bear any responsibility . 2 , the contents of the Department of conditional guarantee letters of guarantee expressed , provided the guarantee is Ruixiang company really should pay Aviation Company exact amount of money , now AVIC company serious breach in the main performance of the contract , the Ruixiang and AVIC 's main contract disputes by arbitration award should be . Request dismissed the claims Aviation Company .

Ruixiang company said a third person , said : Aviation company exists in the performance of a fundamental breach of the contract of sale with Ruixiang company now Ruixiang company sales contract with China National Aviation Company of dispute arbitration should be , even before ascertaining the facts can not be ...