CXPC(SH:600078) Xin Lang Cai Jing·2025-08-29 16:33Core Viewpoint - Chengxing Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against CITIC Financial Asset Management Co., Ltd. and its parent company, CITIC Financial, due to incorrect credit information registered in the People's Bank of China credit system, seeking to correct the status to "loan settled" and claiming compensation for interest losses amounting to 9.8 million yuan [1][2][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Background - Chengxing Co., Ltd. has completed all debt repayments as per the settlement agreement recognized by the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court, but CITIC Asset violated the agreement by incorrectly registering the company's credit information, which has harmed the company's creditworthiness and increased financing difficulties [2][3]. - The lawsuit has been officially accepted by the Jiangyin Court and is currently in the filing stage, with no court hearing scheduled yet [2]. Group 2: Case Details - The plaintiff is Chengxing Co., Ltd., while the defendants are CITIC Asset and CITIC Financial. The case stems from a settlement agreement approved by the Wuxi Intermediate Court on March 14, 2022, which was later recognized on April 15, 2022 [3]. - Chengxing Co., Ltd. claims that due to the incorrect credit registration, it has incurred interest losses calculated at approximately 9.8 million yuan, based on an 8% annual interest rate compared to the average bank loan rate of 3.8% for private listed chemical companies [3]. - The lawsuit requests the defendants to immediately delete the erroneous credit information, correct it, and jointly compensate for the interest loss of 9.8 million yuan along with bearing the litigation costs [3]. Group 3: Impact of the Lawsuit - Chengxing Co., Ltd. asserts that this lawsuit is a legitimate action to protect its rights and maintain a fair market environment, stating it will not significantly impact the company's production and operations [4]. - The company is currently unable to assess the potential impact of the case on its current or future profits as the case has not yet been heard [4].