Zhao Xiaomei v. Jinzhongfu Futures Company
(Dispute over Futures Trading)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Zhao Xiaomei, female, born on March 25, 1963, secretary of International Cooperation Division of Hohai University.@#
Authorized Agent: Zeng Xiaochuan, teacher of Hohai University.@#
Authorized Agent: Sun Zhilun, lawyer of Nanjing Maritime Affairs Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Nanjing Jinzhongfu International Futures Trading Co., Ltd.@#
Legal Representative: Kong Xiancong, board chairman of Nanjing Jinzhongfu International Futures Trading Co., Ltd.@#
Authorized Agent: Tan Zhen, lawyer of Nanjing No. 1 Law Firm.@#
Zhao Xiaomei (plaintiff, Zhao hereafter) brought a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Intermediate Court) against Nanjing Jinzhongfu International Futures Trading Co., Ltd. (defendant, hereinafter referred to as Jinzhongfu Futures Company) due to a dispute over futures trading.@#
Zhao alleged: She opened an account in Jinzhongfu Futures Company, and entrusted Wang Yong (broker of the Company, Wang hereafter) to handle relevant procedures for US-market coffee futures trading. At the wee hours on January 6, 1993, Jinzhongfu Futures Company's dealing room notified Wang that the margin on the account of Zhao's six coffee buy orders was insufficient. Wang issued four close orders and two new orders (sale orders) without Zhao's consent. In the afternoon of January 6, Zhao required Jinzhongfu Futures Company to correct the four close orders issued by Wang at the wee hours of that day. After Jinzhongfu Futures Company agreed to change them into new orders, Zhao made up USD 15,000 of margin. On March 12, i.e., the last trading day, the margin on Zhao's account was totally deficient, and was forced by Jinzhongfu Futures Company by way of cutting loss to be out of the market. Jinzhongfu Futures Company's forcing closeout violated the US-market trading rules, and its cancellation of former orders on January 6 did not meet the international practices of futures trading. Zhao pleaded the court to order Jinzhongfu Futures Company to compensate USD 35,000 of economic losses.@#
．．．．．．

赵小妹诉金中富国际期货交易有限公司期货交易纠纷案@#
@#
原告：赵小妹，女，１９６３年３月２５日出生，河海大学国际合作处秘书。@#
委托代理人：曾小川，河海大学教师。@#
委托代理人：孙志伦，南京海事律师事务所律师。@#
被告：南京金中富国际期货交易有限公司。@#
法定代表人：孔宪聪，南京金中富国际期货交易有限公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：谈　臻，南京市第一律师事务所律师。@#
原告赵小妹因与被告南京金中富国际期货交易有限公司期货交易纠纷一案，向江苏省南京市中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告赵小妹诉称：原告在被告南京金中富国际期货交易有限公司（以下简称金中富期货公司）开户，并委托该公司经纪人王勇代为办理美盘咖啡期货交易有关手续。１９９３年１月６日凌晨，金中富期货公司盘房通知原告经纪人王勇，声称原告仓内六口咖啡买单帐上保证金不足。王勇未经原告同意便下了四口平仓单和两口新单（卖单）。１月６日下午，原告即要求金中富期货公司将王勇当日凌晨所下四平仓单予以改正。该公司同意将其改为新单后，原告补交了保证金１５０００美元。同年３月１２日最后交易日，原告帐上保证金全部亏损，被金中富期货公司砍仓出场。被告强行平仓的行为违反了美盘交易规则，且１月６日改单的做法不符合期货交易的国际惯例，要求判令被告赔偿经济损失３５０００美元。@#
被告金中富期货公司辩称：在１９９３年１月６日凌晨的交易中，被告盘房工作人员根据原告赵小妹帐上实存保证金不足１００％必须保证金的情况，在收盘前提醒原告的经纪人王勇采取相应措施并无不当。平仓四口是王勇独立操作的行为，不是被告强行平仓。王勇在委托人赵小妹授权范围内操作的风险后果，不应由期货交易公司承担。１月６日，被告将平仓单改变为新单，是根据客户要求而采取的一种帐务上暂时不结算的习惯做法，原告在以后的交易中所造成的损失应自行承担。被告要求法院驳回原告赵小妹的诉讼请求。@#
南京市中级人民法院经公开审理，查明：@#
１９９２年１２月２２日，原告赵小妹与被告金中富期货公司签订《顾客契约》，由赵小妹在金中富期货公司开户从事美盘咖啡交易，帐号为Ｕ８１３９，并交纳期货交易保证金２００００美元。同日，赵小妹与金中富期货公司的经纪人王勇签订《客户授权委托书》，由赵小妹授权王勇代办填写、递送交易单据，签收帐单，签收保证金催缴通知书等手续。１９９３年１月５日，赵小妹Ｕ８１３９帐上结存保证金为２４２８０美元，仓内有咖啡买单六口。１月６日凌晨，金中富期货公司盘房工作人员钱雯以赵小妹帐上保证金不足必须保证金的１００％，不能过夜为由，电话通知赵小妹的经纪人王勇采取措施。王勇在既未计算帐上保证金数额，也未征得赵小妹同意的情况下，于２时０５分下了两口平仓单。之后，钱雯认为赵小妹帐上实存保证金仍不足必须保证金的１００％，再次电话通知王勇采取补救措施。王勇又于２时３７分下了两口平仓单。２时３９分，王勇又下了两口新单（卖单）。赵小妹得知这一情况后，当即表示异议。当天下午。赵小妹与金中富期货公司交涉，认为凌晨王勇下平仓单时，帐上实存保证金虽低于１００％，但高于必须保证金的５０％，根据美盘交易规则可以维持过夜，由客户在１月６日晚开盘前２０分钟内补足差额。金中富期货公司及经纪人采取平仓措施违反了交易规则。为此要求被告将王勇凌晨所下的四口平仓单予以改正。金中富期货公司盘房经理赵志明答复称，经与香港安家富顾问管理有限公司（金中富期货公司的外资方）联系后，同意将赵小妹的四口平仓单改为新单，保留了已平仓的四口买单。赵小妹遂于当日１６时１４分，补交了保证金５８２０美元，２２时４２分又交了保证金９１８０美元，合计１５０００美元。截止１月６日开盘前，赵小妹帐上为“六口买单，六口卖单”。嗣后，赵小妹的帐上以此十二口单进行运作并承担此十二口单的交易保证金和浮动亏损。原告赵小妹于１９９３年３月１２美盘最后交易日时，被金中富期期货公司强行砍仓出场，其帐上结存保证金全部亏损。@#
．．．．．．