Di Yi Cai Jing·2025-08-21 04:47Core 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].