（文章来源：证券日报） 证券日报网讯 8月4日晚间，华明装备发布公告称，截至2025年7月31日，公司通过股份回购专用证券账 户以集中竞价交易方式累计回购公司股份13，820，809股，占公司目前总股本的1.5421%。 ...

华明装备（SZ 002270，收盘价：17.6元）8月4日晚间发布公告称，截至2025年7月31日，公司通过股份 回购专用证券账户以集中竞价交易方式回购公司股份约1382万股，占公司目前总股本的1.5421%，最高 成交价为17.8元/股，最低成交价为14.74元/股，成交总金额为人民币约2.21亿元。 2024年1至12月份，华明装备的营业收入构成为：装备制造占比85.53%，电力工程占比12.36%，其他占 比2.11%。 （文章来源：每日经济新闻） ...

证券代码：002270 证券简称：华明装备 公告编号：〔2025〕055 号 华明电力装备股份有限公司 关于回购公司股份进展的公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确和完整，没有虚 假记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 华明电力装备股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）于 2025 年 2 月 28 日召开 第六届董事会第十五次会议审议通过了《关于回购公司股份方案的议案》，公司 拟使用自有或自筹资金以集中竞价交易方式回购公司部分人民币普通股（A 股） 股份，用于实施员工持股计划或股权激励，回购价格不超过人民币 24.60 元/股， 回购的资金总额不低于 15,000 万元（含）且不超过 20,000 万元（含），具体回 购股份的数量及占总股本的比例以回购期满时实际回购数量为准，实施期限为 自公司董事会审议通过回购股份方案之日起不超过 12 个月，具体内容详见于 2025 年 3 月 1 日、2025 年 3 月 10 日在指定信息披露媒体《证券时报》《证券日 报》《上海证券报》《中国证券报》和巨潮资讯网（http://www.cninfo.com.cn） 披露的《关于回购公司股份方案的公告》（公告编号：〔 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article reveals a complex financial case involving a significant loan of 11 billion yuan that has been under litigation for eight years, highlighting potential regulatory challenges and breaches of financial rules [4][46]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The case involves a bank, a real estate company, three loan entities, and 16 guarantors, including three listed companies and two delisted companies [3]. - The loan originated from a transaction where Huaming Equipment sold its subsidiary at a drastically reduced price due to legal risks associated with a borrowing dispute [5][6]. Group 2: Details of the Loan and Legal Proceedings - The loan dispute involves a principal amount of 2 billion yuan, with the plaintiff being Lanzhou Sanwei Huicheng Real Estate Co., and multiple defendants including the loan provider and several guarantors [7][9]. - The total amount in litigation across three loan disputes initiated by the plaintiff amounts to 11 billion yuan, with loan terms of three years [9]. Group 3: Investigation Findings - Investigations revealed that the loan entities had minimal registered capital and questionable operational legitimacy, raising concerns about their ability to secure such large loans [10][13][15]. - The connections between the loan entities and the involved parties, including the bank and the guarantors, suggest a web of financial maneuvering that may have circumvented standard banking practices [18][20]. Group 4: Implications for the Bank - The bank's actions in granting loans to these entities and subsequently transferring non-performing loans at face value to a third party raise questions about its risk management practices [22][39]. - The bank's high non-performing loan ratio and significant exposure to related parties indicate potential vulnerabilities in its financial health [41][42]. Group 5: Regulatory Concerns - The case has drawn scrutiny from regulatory bodies, with concerns about the bank's compliance with lending regulations and the integrity of its financial reporting [24][46]. - The selective litigation strategy employed by the plaintiff has been criticized for potentially skewing accountability among guarantors, raising ethical questions about the pursuit of financial recovery [27][28]. Group 6: Conclusion - The entire situation underscores systemic issues within the banking sector, including inadequate risk controls, governance failures, and potential exploitation of regulatory loopholes [46][47].

Core Viewpoint - The article reveals a complex financial scandal involving a bank, a real estate company, and multiple shell companies, highlighting potential regulatory breaches and challenges to financial rules [2][42]. Group 1: Background of the Case - A lawsuit has brought to light an 11 billion yuan loan that had been dormant for eight years, raising questions about regulatory compliance and the integrity of financial practices [2][6]. - The case involves three listed companies and two delisted companies, with significant financial implications for the parties involved [6][18]. Group 2: Details of the Loan and Companies Involved - The loan originated from Lanzhou Bank, which issued 11 billion yuan to three trade companies, all of which have questionable backgrounds and connections to a larger corporate restructuring [6][17]. - The companies involved, including Hangzhou Hexiu, Hangzhou Douang, and Hangzhou Mudong, have minimal registered capital and dubious operational legitimacy, raising concerns about the bank's lending practices [7][11][13]. Group 3: The Role of Guarantors and Legal Proceedings - The loan was backed by 16 guarantors, including several companies and individuals closely linked to the restructuring of Jianxin Group, which had previously filed for bankruptcy [16][24]. - The legal proceedings have seen multiple parties being sued, with allegations of selective accountability in the pursuit of repayment [24][28]. Group 4: Implications for Lanzhou Bank - Lanzhou Bank's actions, including the original loan issuance and subsequent debt transfer to a third party, have drawn scrutiny regarding its risk management and compliance with financial regulations [38][41]. - The bank's high non-performing loan ratio and significant exposure to related parties raise concerns about its financial health and governance practices [39][41]. Group 5: Broader Industry Concerns - The case highlights systemic issues within the banking sector, including potential erosion of credit rules and oversight, as well as the need for stricter regulations to prevent similar occurrences in the future [42].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a complex financial case involving a significant loan of 11 billion yuan that has been under litigation for eight years, revealing potential regulatory challenges and breaches of financial rules [5][50]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The case involves a bank, a real estate company, three loan entities, and 16 guarantors, including three listed companies and two delisted companies [2]. - The loan of 11 billion yuan originated in May 2017 from Lanzhou Bank, with multiple companies involved in the borrowing and guaranteeing process [10][20]. Group 2: Details of the Loan and Companies Involved - The loan was issued to three trade companies with minimal registered capital and questionable operational legitimacy, raising concerns about the bank's lending practices [11][14]. - The trade companies, including Hangzhou Hexiu, Hangzhou Douang, and Hangzhou Mudong, had connections to a larger corporate restructuring involving Jianxin Group, which had previously declared bankruptcy [20][22]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Debt Collection - The original creditor, Sanwei Huicheng Real Estate Co., acquired the debt from Lanzhou Bank at face value, despite the apparent risks associated with the non-performing loans [23][24]. - The legal actions taken by Sanwei Huicheng have led to multiple court hearings, with a focus on the responsibilities of various guarantors [29][31]. Group 4: Implications for Lanzhou Bank - Lanzhou Bank's role in the loan issuance and subsequent debt transfer raises questions about its risk management and compliance with financial regulations [44][45]. - The bank's high non-performing loan ratio and significant exposure to related parties indicate potential vulnerabilities in its financial health [46][47]. Group 5: Broader Industry Concerns - The case highlights systemic issues within the banking sector, including inadequate risk controls, governance failures, and potential regulatory evasion [51][52]. - The involvement of various parties in this financial web suggests a need for tighter regulations to prevent similar occurrences in the future [52].

（编辑 任世碧） 证券日报网讯 7月31日晚间，华明装备发布公告称，截至本公告日，本次担保提供后，公司和下属全资 及控股子公司的担保额度203，250.00万元，公司对全资及控股子公司的实际担保金额为48，534.00万 元，占公司2024年经审计的净资产比例为15.26%；公司和下属全资及控股子公司不存在对合并报表外 单位提供担保的情况，公司对外担保的债务不存在逾期、涉及诉讼及因被判决败诉而应承担担保的情 形。 ...

（一）担保情况概述 2025 年 7 月 30 日，华明电力装备股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"或"华 明装备"）与中国建设银行股份有限公司上海普陀支行（以下简称"建设银行"） 签署《本金最高额保证合同》，公司拟为全资子公司上海华明电力设备制造有限 公司（以下简称"上海华明"）与建设银行在 2025 年 7 月 30 日至 2028 年 7 月 30 日期间签订人民币资金借款合同、外汇资金借款合同、银行承兑协议、信用证 开证合同、出具保函协议及/或其他法律性文件项下的不超过最高债权限额壹亿 伍仟万元整和相应利息、违约金、费用等债务提供连带责任保证。 （二）担保审议情况 公司分别于 2025 年 4 月 10 日、2025 年 5 月 15 日召开了第六届董事会第十 六次会议和 2024 年年度股东大会，审议并通过了《关于申请银行综合授信提供 担保的议案》。详见公司在巨潮资讯网披露的《董事会决议公告》（公告编号：〔2025〕 010 号）、《关于申请银行综合授信提供担保的公告》（公告编号：〔2025〕014 号）、 《关于 2024 年年度股东大会决议的公告》（公告编号：〔2025〕038 号）。 证券代码：00 ...

Group 1 - Morgan Stanley reports that the recently announced Yarlung Tsangpo River hydropower development plan in Tibet is directing funds towards engineering machinery stocks [1] - The complex terrain makes traditional machinery crucial in the early stages of the project, with Weichai Power (000338) identified as a leading enterprise in heavy-duty truck engines and construction machinery, placed on a positive catalyst watchlist with "overweight" rating and target prices of HKD 22 and RMB 24 for H-shares and A-shares respectively [1] - Sany Heavy Industry (600031) and XCMG (000425) are also recognized as leaders in large machinery, both receiving "overweight" ratings with target prices of RMB 25 and RMB 11.1 respectively [1] Group 2 - China Railway (601390) holds a 40% market share in tunnel machinery and is rated "overweight" with target prices of HKD 5 and RMB 8.2 for H-shares and A-shares respectively [1] - Traditional infrastructure stocks such as CRRC (601766) and Conch Cement (600585) have recently strengthened, indicating a market shift from risk control to support for new project launches, with CRRC receiving an "overweight" rating and target prices of HKD 6.8 and RMB 10.1 [1] - The Yarlung Tsangpo River hydropower development plan is expected to boost demand in upstream industries such as construction, machinery, cement, and steel, benefiting companies like XJ Electric (000400), Siyuan Electric (002028), and Huaming Equipment (002270) in the power equipment sector [2]

Group 1 - The company held its third meeting of the seventh board of directors on July 22, 2025, in Shanghai, with all nine directors present, complying with relevant regulations [1] - The board discussed and approved the proposal to adjust the purchase price for the 2025 employee stock ownership plan, following the completion of the 2024 annual equity distribution [2] - The proposal was reviewed and approved by the company's remuneration and assessment committee prior to the board meeting [2]