为有效整合资本市场资源，充分发挥专业投资机构优势，进行战略性布局及推动主营业务 发展与升级，切实推进公司整体战略发展规划实施，天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司（以 下简称"公司"）拟与上海盈昌私募基金管理有限公司（以下简称"盈昌私募"）、粤民天海 创业投资（三亚）有限公司（暂定名，尚未正式设立，以下简称"粤民天海"）、瑞昌市赤乌 产业控股集团有限公司或其指定关联方（以下简称"赤乌产业"）及舟山易桥资产管理有限公 司或其指定关联方（以下简称"舟山易桥"）共同投资设立九江市绿色智慧船舶港航产业基金 （有限合伙）（暂定名，具体以工商注册为准，以下简称"合伙企业"），并签订《合伙协议》。 合伙企业的注册资本为 10,000 万元，其中公司拟作为有限合伙人认缴出资人民币 900 万元， 占出资总额的 9%。 2025 年 8 月 26 日，公司召开第六届董事会第十四次会议审议通过了《关于对外投资设立 产业基金的议案》，具体内容详见公司同日披露的《第六届董事会第十四次会议决议公告》（公 告编号：2025-065）。 根据《深圳证券交易所创业板股票上市规则》《上市公司重大资产重组管理办法》和《公 司章程》等有关规定，本次对 ...

证券代码：300008 证券简称：天海防务 公告编号：2025-071 天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司 关于增加2025年度对外担保额度的公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚假 记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 特别风险提示： 截至本公告日，天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）的对外担保为 对全资子（孙）公司江苏大津重工有限公司、江苏佳美海洋工程装备有限公司、上海沃金天然 气利用有限公司、江苏金海运科技有限公司、上海佳船工程监理发展有限公司、上海长海船务 有限公司、天海融合置业（上海）有限公司的担保，以及对控股子公司江苏九多焊接技术有限 公司按持股比例提供的担保，其中，子公司江苏大津重工有限公司、天海融合置业（上海）有 限公司、江苏佳美海洋工程装备有限公司 2024 年末资产负债率超过 70%，分别为 70.10%、 71.85%、76.69%；本次年度董事会审批的公司对控股子（孙）公司担保金额为 46 亿元人民币 （或等值外币），占公司 2024 年经审计净资产的 219.73%，敬请投资者注意投资风险。 一、担保情况概述 （一）基本情况 2025 年 4 月 ...

为完善公司治理机制，提升规范运作水平，根据《中华人民共和国公司法》（以下简称"《公 司法》"）《中华人民共和国证券法》（以下简称"《证券法》"）《上市公司章程指引》《深 圳证券交易所创业板股票上市规则》《深圳证券交易所上市公司自律监管指引第 2 号——创业 板上市公司规范运作》等相关法律、行政法规、部门规章、规范性文件、证券交易所规则的规 定，结合公司实际情况，对《公司章程》及相关条款进行了修订，公司将不再设置监事会，其 职权由董事会审计委员会行使。公司《监事会议事规则》《监事选举累积投票实施细则》等相 关制度相应废止，公司各项制度中涉及监事会、监事的规定不再适用。截至本公告披露日，公 司各位监事不存在应当履行而未履行的承诺事项，公司对各位监事为公司发展作出的贡献表示 衷心的感谢！ 本议案尚需提交公司 2025 年第一次临时股东会审议，在股东会审议通过之前，公司监事 会仍将严格按照《公司法》等法律法规和规范性文件的要求，勤勉尽责履行监督职能，继续对 公司经营、公司财务及公司董事、高级管理人员履职的合法合规性等事项进行监督，维护公司 和全体股东的利益。 二、修订《公司章程》《股东会议事规则》《董事会议事规则》情 ...

证券代码：300008 证券简称：天海防务 公告编号：2025-072 天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司 关于使用公积金弥补亏损的公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露内容的真实、准确和完整，没有虚假 记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 母公司本次拟用于弥补亏损的资本公积全部来源于股东以货币方式出资形成的资本（股本） 溢价。 二、导致亏损的主要原因 公司母公司亏损的主要原因，系 2018 年，因子公司江苏金海运科技有限公司、上海沃金 第 1页 证券代码：300008 证券简称：天海防务 公告编号：2025-072 天然气利用有限公司等经营业绩下滑，且短期内难以改善，决定对母公司长期股权投资进行减 值。 为深入贯彻落实国务院《关于加强监管防范风险推动资本市场高质量发展的若干意见》、 中国证监会《关于加强上市公司监管的意见（试行）》等法律法规要求，积极推动公司高质量 发展，提升投资者回报能力和水平，保护投资者特别是中小投资者的合法权益，天海融合防务 装备技术股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）按照相关规定使用公积金弥补亏损，进一步推动 公司符合法律法规和《公司章程》规定的利润分配条件。 公司于 2025 年 8 月 26 ...

关于2025年度日常关联交易计划的公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚假 记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 一、日常关联交易基本情况 （一）关联交易概述 1、根据天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）的实际情况，并结合 公司业务发展的需要，预计公司及子公司 2025 年将与武汉南华工业设备工程股份有限公司（以 下简称"南华工业"）发生不超过人民币 3,000 万元日常关联交易、与隆佳安全科技（泰州） 有限公司（以下简称"隆佳科技"）发生不超过人民币 626 万元日常关联交易、与佳豪船舶技 术（上海）有限公司（以下简称"佳豪技术"）发生不超过人民币 630.4 万元日常关联交易、 与广东湛江湾佳豪海洋工程有限公司（以下简称"湛江湾佳豪"）发生不超过人民币 915 万元 日常关联交易，及与公司董事长何旭东先生控制的关联企业等关联方新增发生不超过人民币 3,027 万元日常关联交易。 2、2025 年 2 月 21 日，公司召开第六届董事会第十次会议、第六届监事会第七次会议审 议通过了《关于全资子公司签订日常关联交易合同的议案》，同意全资子公司江苏大津重工有 限公司与关联 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the growth in China's civil steel shipbuilding industry, with a projected production of 4.57 million deadweight tons in June 2025, representing a year-on-year increase of 6.2% [1] - Cumulative production for the first half of 2025 is reported at 24.355 million deadweight tons, showing a cumulative growth of 9.4% [1] - The article references several listed companies in the industry, including China Shipbuilding (600150), China Heavy Industry (601989), and others, indicating a broad market interest [1] Group 2 - The data is sourced from the National Bureau of Statistics and organized by Zhiyan Consulting, emphasizing the reliability of the information [3]

证券代码：300008 证券简称：天海防务 公告编号：2025-064 4、二审判决结果：驳回上诉，维持原判。 5、对公司损益产生的影响：本次公司收到的法律文书为二审民事判决书，公司胜诉。后 续进展和执行情况尚存在不确定性，该诉讼事项对公司本期利润或期后利润的具体影响尚存在 不确定性。公司将根据案件进展情况及时履行信息披露义务，请广大投资者理性投资，注意投 资风险。 天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司（以下简称"天海防务"或"公司"）于近日收到上 海市第一中级人民法院（以下简称"一中院"）作出的《民事判决书》【（2025）沪 01 民终 4445 号】。现将有关情况公告如下： 天海融合防务装备技术股份有限公司 关于江苏金海运科技有限公司业绩承诺诉讼的进展公告 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚假 记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 重要内容提示: 1、案件所处的诉讼阶段：二审终审判决。 2、公司所处的当事人地位：一审原告，二审被上诉人。 3、一审法院判决支持原告诉请：（1）现金补偿款人民币 2.363.8 万元及利息；（2）奖 励款项人民币 1.392.31 万元及利息。驳回原告诉请：（ ...

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court and the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau have released ten cases related to securities false statements, providing clear guidelines for market participants regarding responsibilities and behaviors that may violate information disclosure regulations [1][2]. Group 1: Securities False Statement Cases - The five typical cases of securities false statement responsibility disputes focus on issues such as "deceptive" share buybacks, the identification of predictive information, and the application of "safe harbor" rules [2][3]. - In the case of *ST Jintai, executives were found liable for failing to fulfill share buyback commitments, resulting in a compensation of approximately 780,000 yuan to investors [2]. - Shanghai Electric was held responsible for not timely disclosing performance losses, leading to false records in its 2020 annual report, and was denied the "safe harbor" rule exemption [2][3]. - In the financial fraud case of Zhong An Ke, three internal directors were held liable for relying excessively on intermediaries, while three independent directors were exempted from liability [2][3]. Group 2: Regulatory Enforcement Cases - The five regulatory enforcement cases focus on frequent violations such as "shell-preserving" financial fraud, performance-related financial manipulation, and abuse of control rights [3][4]. - Specific cases include *ST Jintai's executives violating buyback commitments, financial fraud in subsidiaries of Shanghai Shiji, and illegal share reductions by the controlling shareholder of Feikai Materials [4]. Group 3: Legal Responsibility Clarification - Recent judicial practices have introduced new types of disputes, including the legal applicability of different market segments and the identification of responsibilities for aiding fraudsters [5]. - The cases emphasize that information disclosure obligations cannot be evaded under the guise of predictive information and clarify the legal responsibilities of public commitments made by listed companies [5]. Group 4: Strict Enforcement and Accountability - The regulatory approach emphasizes strict enforcement and increased penalties for violations, particularly targeting key individuals responsible for financial fraud [6]. - For instance, the former chairman of Delisted Fuxin was found guilty of violating important information disclosure laws, while penalties were imposed on the controlling shareholder of Feikai Materials for illegal share reductions [6]. - The Shanghai Financial Court has received a total of 18,040 securities false statement responsibility disputes, with a total amount in dispute of 7.646 billion yuan, involving 26,956 investors [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent release of ten cases related to securities false statements by the Shanghai Financial Court and the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau, providing clear guidelines for market participants regarding responsibilities and behaviors that may violate disclosure regulations [3][4]. Group 1: Case Summaries - The ten cases involve several listed companies, including *ST Jintai, Zhong An Ke, Shanghai Electric, and others, as well as delisted companies like退市富控 and *ST Ba'an [4]. - The five judicial cases focus on issues such as "deceptive" share buybacks, the identification of predictive information, and the application of "safe harbor" rules, with examples of both responsible and non-responsible parties [5]. - In the case of *ST Jintai, executives made false promises regarding share buybacks, leading to a court ruling that required them to compensate investors approximately 780,000 yuan [6]. - Shanghai Electric was found liable for failing to disclose performance losses in a timely manner, resulting in a false annual report, and was not granted exemption under the "predictive information safe harbor" rule [6]. - In the Zhong An Ke financial fraud case, three internal directors were held partially responsible for relying excessively on intermediaries, while three independent directors were exempted from liability [6]. - The case involving ST Xingyue highlighted that significant events affecting stock trading could sever the causal link for false statement claims, leading to the rejection of investor compensation requests [7]. Group 2: Regulatory Enforcement - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau's enforcement cases focus on frequent violations such as "shell protection" financial fraud, performance-related financial manipulation, and insider trading [7]. - Specific cases include violations by *ST Jintai executives regarding share buyback commitments, financial fraud by subsidiaries of Shanghai Shimao, and illegal share reductions by controlling shareholders of Feikai Materials [7]. - The regulatory approach emphasizes strict enforcement and increased penalties for key individuals involved in financial fraud, with notable penalties imposed on executives from退市富控 and *ST Ba'an [10]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Developments - Recent judicial practices have introduced new legal issues, including the application of laws across different market segments and the identification of predictive information [9]. - The article highlights the need for clarity in the legal responsibilities of public commitments made by company executives and the importance of not evading disclosure obligations under the guise of predictive information [10]. - The Shanghai Financial Court reported handling 18,040 securities false statement cases with a total amount of 7.646 billion yuan, indicating a significant number of investors involved [11].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court and the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau have released ten cases related to securities false statements, providing clear guidelines for market participants regarding responsibilities and behaviors that may violate information disclosure regulations [1][2]. Group 1: Key Cases and Responsibilities - The five typical cases of securities false statement responsibility disputes focus on issues such as "deceptive" share buybacks, the identification of predictive information, and the application of "safe harbor" rules [2][5]. - In the case of *ST Jintai, executives were found liable for false statements due to unfulfilled share buyback commitments, resulting in compensation of approximately 780,000 yuan to investors [2][4]. - Shanghai Electric was held responsible for failing to timely disclose performance losses and inaccurately measuring expected credit losses, leading to a false record in its 2020 annual report [2][3]. Group 2: Regulatory Enforcement and Penalties - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau has emphasized strict enforcement and increased penalties for frequent violations such as financial fraud and misuse of control rights [3][6]. - Notable penalties include a fine of 7.67 million yuan for the controlling shareholder of Feikai Materials for illegal share reductions and a 4 million yuan fine for the chairman of a subsidiary of Shanghai Shihua for financial fraud [6][4]. - The report indicates that as of December 2024, the Shanghai Financial Court has accepted 18,040 cases of securities false statement disputes, with a total amount in dispute of 7.646 billion yuan and 26,956 investors involved [6][7]. Group 3: Legal and Judicial Developments - New types of disputes have emerged in judicial practice, including the legal applicability of different market segments and the identification of responsibilities for predictive information [5][6]. - The report highlights the challenges in civil compensation cases related to false statements, particularly in the context of ongoing administrative investigations or criminal investigations [7]. - The need for improved coordination between civil lawsuits, administrative penalties, and criminal accountability is emphasized to enhance the effectiveness of investor protection [7].