贵州百灵12月3日公告，公司收到公司实际控制人姜伟的通知，其于近日收到中国证券监督管理委员会 下发的《立案告知书》。按照该告知书，姜伟先生因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转 让股票，中国证监会决定对其进行立案。本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟个人的调查，与公司日常经 营管理和业务活动无关，不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产生影响。 ...

贵州百灵表示，本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟个人的调查，与公司日常经营管理和业务活动无关，不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产生影响。 贵州百灵今日收跌0.89%，报5.57元。 12月3日，贵州百灵公告，收到公司实际控制人姜伟的通知，其于近日收到中国证券监督管理委员会下发的《立案告知书》。 按照该告知书，姜伟因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，根据《中华人民共和国证券法》《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》等法律 法规，中国证监会决定对其进行立案。 编辑丨瑜见 ...

贵州百灵（002424）(002424.SZ)发布公告，公司收到公司实际控制人姜伟先生的通知，其于近日收到 中国证券监督管理委员会(以下简称"中国证监会")下发的《立案告知书》(编号：证监立案字 03720252005号)。按照该告知书，姜伟先生因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股 票，根据《中华人民共和国证券法》《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》等法律法规，中国证监会决定对其 进行立案。 ...

证券代码：002424 证券简称：贵州百灵 公告编号：2025-047 贵州百灵企业集团制药股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）收到 公司实际控制人姜伟先生的通知，其于近日收到中国证券监督管理委 员会（以下简称"中国证监会"）下发的《立案告知书》（编号：证 监立案字03720252005号）。按照该告知书，姜伟先生因涉嫌内幕交 易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，根据《中华人民共和 国证券法》《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》等法律法规，中国证监会 决定对其进行立案。 本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟先生个人的调查，与公司日常 经营管理和业务活动无关，不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产 生影响。立案调查期间，姜伟先生将积极配合中国证监会的立案调查 工作。公司将持续关注上述事项的进展情况，并严格按照相关法律法 规及监管要求及时履行信息披露义务。 公司所有信息均以在指定信息披露媒体披露的信息为准，敬请广 大投资者理性投资，注意投资风险。 特此公告。 贵州百灵企业集团制药股份有限公司 董 事 会 2025年12月3日 贵州百灵企业集团制药股份有限公司 关于实际控制人收到中国证券监督管理委员会立案 告知书的公告 本公司及 ...

贵州百灵公告，公司实际控制人姜伟因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，被中 国证监会立案。本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟个人的调查，与公司日常经营管理和业务活动无关， 不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产生影响。 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 转自：证券时报 人民财讯12月3日电，贵州百灵(002424)12月3日公告，公司实控人姜伟近日收到证监会下发的立案告知 书。按照该告知书，姜伟因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，证监会决定对其 进行立案。此次立案系对公司实控人姜伟个人的调查，与公司日常经营管理和业务活动无关，不会对公 司及子公司生产经营活动产生影响。 ...

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 格隆汇12月3日丨贵州百灵（维权）(002424.SZ)公布，收到公司实际控制人姜伟先生的通知，其于近日 收到中国证券监督管理委员会（简称"中国证监会"）下发的《立案告知书》。按照该告知书，姜伟先生 因涉嫌内幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，根据《中华人民共和国证券法》《中华人 民共和国行政处罚法》等法律法规，中国证监会决定对其进行立案。本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟 先生个人的调查，与公司日常经营管理和业务活动无关，不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产生影 响。 ...

格隆汇12月3日丨贵州百灵(002424.SZ)公布，收到公司实际控制人姜伟先生的通知，其于近日收到中国 证券监督管理委员会（简称"中国证监会"）下发的《立案告知书》。按照该告知书，姜伟先生因涉嫌内 幕交易、信息披露违法、违反限制性规定转让股票，根据《中华人民共和国证券法》《中华人民共和国 行政处罚法》等法律法规，中国证监会决定对其进行立案。本次立案系对公司实际控制人姜伟先生个人 的调查，与公司日常经营管理和业务活动无关，不会对上市公司及子公司生产经营活动产生影响。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The transformation of a "white knight" into a "barbarian" in the capital market is rare, exemplified by the recent legal dispute between Huachuang Securities and Guizhou Bailing, which began as a rescue cooperation but ended in court [2] Group 1: Background of Guizhou Bailing - Guizhou Bailing, established in 1999, became the "first stock of Miao medicine" in 2010, experiencing significant growth in both scale and performance, which elevated its controlling shareholder, Jiang Wei, to the status of a billionaire in Guizhou [3] - Jiang Wei actively invested in local ecological agriculture, cultural tourism, and government-recommended projects despite knowing these investments were unlikely to be profitable in the short term [4] Group 2: Financial Struggles and Rescue Agreement - Due to a downturn in the domestic capital market, Jiang Wei faced increasing pressure from stock pledges, having paid approximately 1.2 billion yuan in interest from 2011 to 2018 [5] - In December 2018, Guizhou Bailing signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Huachuang Securities, which provided 1.4 billion yuan in funding in exchange for an 11.54% equity stake and additional stock pledge loans [6] Group 3: Escalation of Dispute - Initially, Huachuang Securities promised not to seek control over Guizhou Bailing, but by early 2021, it had effectively taken over key financial roles within the company [8][10] - After the rescue plans' deadlines in 2022 and 2024, Huachuang Securities did not reduce its stock holdings as agreed, despite Guizhou Bailing's stock price reaching 11.97 yuan per share, significantly above Huachuang's cost [12] Group 4: Allegations of Malpractice - Huachuang Securities allegedly obstructed Guizhou Bailing from attracting strategic investors and engaged in actions that led to the failure of several cooperative projects [13] - From May 2020, Huachuang Securities conducted short-selling activities that coincided with significant stock price declines, raising suspicions of a strategy to acquire control at a lower cost [14][15] Group 5: Implications for the Capital Market - The dispute between Guizhou Bailing and Huachuang Securities serves as a typical case of conflict arising from rescue cooperation, highlighting the need for clearer regulations and enhanced supervision in the capital market to protect investor confidence [16]

Core Viewpoint - The originally positive rescue "marriage" between Guizhou Bai Ling and Huachuang Securities has turned into a bitter legal dispute, highlighting the complexities and risks associated with capital rescue efforts in distressed companies [1][2]. Group 1: Background of the Incident - In 2019, Guizhou Bai Ling's major shareholder Jiang Wei accepted a rescue plan from Huachuang Securities amid high pledge ratios, leading to a conflict over the terms of the agreement [1][5]. - Huachuang Securities provided 1.4 billion yuan in funding through share transfers, acquiring an 11.54% stake in Guizhou Bai Ling, and also extended 361 million yuan in stock pledge loans [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - After multiple failed negotiations, Huachuang Securities filed a lawsuit against Jiang Wei and his associates, claiming a total of 1.4 billion yuan in principal and related fees [2]. - Jiang Wei counter-sued, demanding Huachuang Securities to fulfill its obligations and compensate for stock price losses due to alleged malicious actions [2]. Group 3: Control and Governance Issues - Huachuang Securities initially waived voting rights associated with its shares but later sought to regain these rights, indicating a shift in its approach to governance [6][7]. - A workgroup from Huachuang Securities took control of key management positions within Guizhou Bai Ling, raising concerns about its intentions to gain actual control over the company [7][8]. Group 4: Financial Performance and Stock Movements - During the rescue period, Guizhou Bai Ling's stock price peaked at 11.97 yuan per share, significantly above Huachuang Securities' acquisition cost, yet the latter did not sell its shares [10]. - Allegations arose that Huachuang Securities obstructed Guizhou Bai Ling's efforts to attract strategic investors, which could have facilitated the company's recovery [13][14]. Group 5: Regulatory and Compliance Aspects - Regulatory bodies have stated that Huachuang Securities has not been found to actively seek control over Guizhou Bai Ling, despite the ongoing disputes [8][16]. - The actions of Huachuang Securities during the rescue period have been scrutinized for compliance with regulations that prohibit seeking control and require clear exit strategies [6][10].