卧龙新能: 北京市金杜律师事务所关于卧龙新能源集团股份有限公司重大资产出售暨关联交易项目股票交易自查期间相关机构或人员买卖股票情况的专项核查意见

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the special legal opinion issued by Beijing Jindu Law Firm regarding the major asset sale and related party transaction of Wolong New Energy Group Co., Ltd, specifically focusing on the stock trading activities of relevant insiders during the self-examination period [1][2]. Group 1: Transaction Overview - Wolong New Energy plans to transfer 90% of its stake in Wolong Mining (Shanghai) Co., Ltd to Zhejiang Wolong Shunyu Investment Co., Ltd [1]. - The legal opinion is based on various laws and regulations, including the Company Law and Securities Law of the People's Republic of China [2]. Group 2: Insider Trading Investigation - The investigation covered insider trading activities of relevant personnel from six months prior to the initial disclosure of the transaction until the day before the draft report was disclosed [5]. - The scope of insider information included individuals from the indirect controlling shareholder, Wolong Holding Group Co., Ltd, and its directors, supervisors, and senior management [5]. Group 3: Stock Trading Activities - During the self-examination period, specific individuals engaged in buying and selling the company's stock, with notable transactions including: - Li Yingang, a supervisor at Wolong Holding, bought 139,400 shares and sold 156,800 shares [6]. - Tang Haiyan, a supervisor at Wolong Holding, bought 168,800 shares and sold 158,800 shares [10]. - The legal firm conducted interviews with these individuals to obtain their declarations and commitments regarding their trading activities [6][10]. Group 4: Declarations and Commitments - Individuals involved declared that their trading activities were based on market trends and public information, asserting no connection to the transaction [6][10]. - They committed to not trading the company's stock until the transaction is completed or terminated and to not disclose any non-public information related to the transaction [6][10]. Group 5: Conclusion of the Investigation - The law firm concluded that the trading activities of the relevant personnel and institutions during the self-examination period did not constitute insider trading and did not pose a legal obstacle to the transaction [17].