Core Viewpoint - The restructuring of Jintongling (300091.SZ) has made significant progress, which is crucial for the acquisition by Huitongda Network (9878.HK) to proceed smoothly [1] Group 1: Acquisition Details - Huitongda announced in September last year its intention to acquire a 25% stake in Jintongling, which would make it the largest shareholder post-acquisition [1] - The acceptance of Jintongling's restructuring application by the Nantong Intermediate People's Court marks a key step in the acquisition process [1] Group 2: Restructuring Process - Jintongling's restructuring application was accepted on December 31, 2025, indicating that the restructuring has entered a judicial phase and is advancing substantively [1] - Following the court's acceptance, Jintongling's stock will resume trading on January 6 under the new name "*ST Tongling," reflecting its status as a company undergoing special governance [1] Group 3: Market Expectations - The market anticipates that upon completion of the restructuring process, Jintongling's fundamentals will significantly improve, potentially allowing it to return to a path of sustainable operations and profitability [1]

Core Viewpoint - The year 2025 marks a significant shift in the A-share capital market towards enhanced regulatory logic and stronger enforcement, with a focus on investor protection and accountability for violations [2][3]. Regulatory Environment - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) emphasizes the importance of collaborative governance between regulation and judiciary to protect the rights of investors, particularly small and medium-sized investors [3][5]. - The CSRC's commitment to a "zero tolerance" approach will be closely linked to civil compensation, expediting the initiation of representative litigation following administrative penalties [12]. Investor Protection Mechanisms - Recent court rulings, such as the case against Jintongling, demonstrate the effectiveness of the representative litigation system in protecting investor rights and resolving disputes [4][5]. - The establishment of a special compensation fund for cases like Guangdao Digital's false statements indicates a proactive approach to resolving market conflicts and safeguarding investor interests [5]. Trends in Violations - In 2025, a total of 264 listed companies were investigated for information disclosure violations, reflecting a sustained high-pressure regulatory environment [6][7]. - Common violations include systematic financial fraud, undisclosed related-party transactions, and significant omissions in major event disclosures [8][9]. Legal Outcomes and Investor Rights - The year 2025 saw 31 stocks achieve favorable verdicts in investor compensation cases, indicating a clearer judicial standard for securities fraud liability [10]. - The connection between administrative penalties and civil liability is becoming more pronounced, with companies facing severe consequences for financial misconduct [9][12]. Future Outlook - The year 2026 is anticipated to further mature the investor protection framework, with potential reforms including lower thresholds for collective lawsuits and mandatory dividend policies for profitable companies [12][13]. - The introduction of a whistleblower reward system and a compensation fund for investors affected by fraudulent delistings is expected to enhance accountability and deter misconduct [13].

中经记者 孙汝祥 夏欣 北京报道 近日，江苏省南京市中级人民法院（以下简称"南京中院"）对中证中小投资者服务中心有限责任公司 （以下简称"投服中心"）提起的金通灵特别代表人诉讼作出先行判决。判决被告金通灵公司赔偿原告叶 小明等43269名投资者投资损失共计7.75亿元。 截至目前，特别代表人诉讼已有三个案例落地。此前两例分别是，康美药业案52037名投资者获赔24.59 亿元，泽达易盛案7195名投资者获赔2.8亿余元。此外，锦州港案、美尚生态案正在推进之中。 受访专家对《中国经营报》记者表示，特别代表人诉讼是中小投资者维权利器，可以聚合"散户"，实 现"零成本"维权。 另一方面，专家认为，该项制度自2020年推出以来，实践案例并不算多。需要在案件筛选、费用保障、 简化启动程序等方面加以改进，以推动实现该项制度实践常态化。 特别代表人诉讼审结第三例 金通灵（300091.SZ）2025年12月31日披露《关于投资者诉讼事项进展的公告》显示，南京中院当日出 具一审《民事判决书》，判决被告金通灵于本判决发生法律效力之日起10日内赔偿原告叶小明等43269 名投资者投资损失共计7.75亿元。并向原告代表人投服中心给 ...

【#2026开年2家公司实施ST# ，#去年超80只A股被立案调查# 】 刚刚进入2026年，就有上市公司要被实施ST。 根据安排，得润电子将自1月6日开市起实施其他风险警示，股票简称变更为ST得润。另据披露，同 日，金通灵（300091.SZ）将"披星戴帽"，变更为*ST金灵。 在此之前，2025年年尾，多家A股公司密集披露被立案消息，多因涉嫌信披违法违规，如铂力特 （688333.SH）、启迪设计（300500.SZ）等。刚刚过去的2025年是上市公司监管大年，第一财经记者根 据Wind数据梳理，去年全年共有超80家A股公司、200余名相关责任人被立案调查，其中约四成是ST公 司。 随着立案调查结束，多家公司被查明长期财务造假，并因此吃下大额罚单，部分公司因此走向了退市。 中国政法大学商学院副教授胡历芳告诉第一财经记者，2025年，资本市场监管更趋严格，体现了自去 年"新国九条"以来，证监会所秉承的、一以贯之的严监管思路。 据得润电子（002055.SZ）最新公告，该公司被查明财务造假，两年半时间里虚构回款累计超5亿元，导 致其多份财报存在虚假记载。最终，公司及相关责任人被罚没逾2000万。 ...

Group 1 - The core point of the article is that Derun Electronics has been found guilty of financial fraud, with over 500 million yuan in fictitious receivables over a period of two and a half years, leading to multiple financial reports containing false records [2][4] - Derun Electronics will be subject to risk warnings starting January 6, with its stock name changed to ST Derun, and related parties have been fined over 20 million yuan [2][3] - In 2025, more than 80 A-share companies and over 200 related individuals were investigated for violations, with around 40% being ST companies, indicating a trend of stricter regulatory oversight in the capital market [2][3] Group 2 - The article highlights that several A-share companies have been investigated for financial fraud, with significant penalties imposed, including ST Dongtong and ST Tiansheng, which were found to have inflated revenues and profits over multiple years [4][5] - A total of 29 A-share companies were delisted in 2025, with some facing mandatory delisting due to serious violations, such as ST Suwu, which was found to have inflated revenues by 1.772 billion yuan and profits by 75.9975 million yuan [6][7] - The regulatory environment is described as having a "zero tolerance" approach, with ongoing efforts to enhance market supervision and improve the delisting system to maintain a balanced and healthy capital market [8][9] Group 3 - The article discusses the need for improved governance and the use of technology to more accurately target illegal activities, emphasizing the importance of intermediary institutions in preventing misconduct during the listing process [10][11] - It is suggested that a reputation mechanism for intermediary institutions should be established to increase the costs associated with collusion with listed companies [11]

（一）被告金通灵公司于本判决发生法律效力之日起十日内赔偿原告叶小明等43,269名投资者投资 损失共计774,785,993.38元； （二）被告金通灵公司于本判决发生法律效力之日起十日内向原告代表人中证中小投资者服务中心 有限责任公司给付律师费25万元； 中国经济网北京1月3日讯 华西证券(002926.SZ)近日披露《重大诉讼进展公告》。 公告称，华西证券作为金通灵科技集团股份有限公司（以下简称金通灵公司）证券虚假陈述责任纠 纷案（以下简称本案）的共同被告之一，此前披露了本案的相关诉讼情况。 2025年12月31日，公司获悉江苏省南京市中级人民法院（以下简称南京中院）就本案作出先行判 决，对金通灵公司出具《民事判决书》。具体判决如下： 华西证券表示，本次判决是针对金通灵公司作出的先行判决，南京中院将对原告要求除金通灵公司 以外的其他25名被告承担民事赔偿责任的诉讼请求继续审理。公司尚未收到南京中院关于本案涉及公司 的判决，因此暂无法判断对公司本期利润或期后利润的影响。 (责任编辑：魏京婷) 如未按本判决指定的期间履行给付金钱义务，应当依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百六十 四条规定，加倍支付迟延履行期 ...

Core Viewpoint - Jintongling has been involved in financial fraud for six consecutive years, inflating revenue by over 1.3 billion and profits by 500 million, and is currently undergoing bankruptcy reorganization [1][7][9] Group 1: Financial Fraud and Legal Proceedings - Jintongling utilized various methods for financial fraud over six years, leading to inflated revenue and profits [1][7] - On September 30, 2025, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court issued a criminal judgment against Jintongling and related parties [2][8] - The Nanjing Intermediate Court ruled that Jintongling must compensate over 43,000 investors a total of 770 million yuan, with Everbright Securities being the most affected party [3][9][12] Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Investor Protection - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has strengthened penalties for securities crimes, indicating a shift towards more severe consequences for corporate misconduct [1][9] - The Jintongling case is part of a broader trend in which the CSRC is applying special representative litigation procedures to protect investor rights, following similar cases like Kangmei Pharmaceutical [5][13] - The CSRC will continue to support investor protection initiatives and facilitate the use of representative litigation to maintain market integrity and promote high-quality market development [6][14]

炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 来源：风口财经 责任编辑：郝欣煜 炒股就看金麒麟分析师研报，权威，专业，及时，全面，助您挖掘潜力主题机会！ 来源：风口财经 责任编辑：郝欣煜 ...

Core Viewpoint - The first-instance judgment of the Jin Tong Ling Securities false statement liability dispute has been announced, with the Nanjing Intermediate Court ordering Jin Tong Ling to compensate over 43,000 investors nearly 775 million yuan and bear related legal fees [1][3] Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - The court will continue to hear civil compensation claims against 25 other defendants, including Everbright Securities, with a separate judgment document to be issued [3] - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) highlighted that the Jin Tong Ling case is a significant application of the special representative litigation procedure, following previous cases like Kangmei Pharmaceutical and Zeda Yisheng [4] - The special representative litigation system is seen as an effective legal mechanism to deter potential violations in the securities market and to facilitate collective investor rights protection [7] Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Penalties - Four securities firms and one accounting firm have faced penalties due to the long-term financial fraud by Jin Tong Ling, which spanned six years [8] - Specific penalties include warning letters for Everbright Securities and its personnel, as well as regulatory measures for Guohai Securities and Huaxi Securities, with the latter also facing a six-month suspension of its sponsorship business [9] - The accounting firm, Dahuasheng, was fined a total of 44.02 million yuan and suspended from providing securities services for six months due to its involvement in the fraudulent activities [10] Group 3: Financial Impact of Fraud - Jin Tong Ling's financial manipulation resulted in a total of over 1.1 billion yuan in inflated revenue and over 400 million yuan in inflated profits across several years, with significant discrepancies in reported profits [10] - The manipulation rates for the years involved were alarmingly high, with profit inflation reaching over 5774% in 2020, indicating severe violations of investor rights and financial integrity [10]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the first-instance judgment of the Jin Tong Ling Securities false statement liability dispute, where the Nanjing Intermediate Court ordered Jin Tong Ling to compensate over 43,300 investors nearly 775 million yuan in losses, along with related legal fees and case acceptance fees [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - The court will continue to hear civil compensation claims against Everbright Securities and 25 other defendants, with a separate ruling document to be produced [4]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) highlighted that the Jin Tong Ling case is the latest to apply the special representative litigation procedure, following similar cases like Kangmei Pharmaceutical and Zeda Yisheng [5]. - The CSRC emphasized the effectiveness of the special representative litigation system in collectively protecting investors' rights and deterring potential violations in the securities market [8]. Group 2: Financial Implications and Penalties - Jin Tong Ling's financial fraud spanned six years, leading to penalties for four securities firms and one accounting firm involved [12]. - The Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau issued seven fines against the involved firms and personnel, with specific penalties including warning letters and suspensions of business qualifications [13]. - The audit intermediary, Dahua, faced a total fine of 44.02 million yuan and a six-month suspension from providing securities services due to severe financial manipulation by Jin Tong Ling [14]. Group 3: Financial Manipulation Details - Jin Tong Ling's fraudulent activities resulted in a total of over 1.1 billion yuan in inflated revenue and over 400 million yuan in inflated profits across several years, with significant discrepancies in reported profits [14]. - The manipulation of profits was particularly severe in 2019, where the profit reduction exceeded 57 times, indicating a high level of concealment and severity of the fraudulent behavior [14].