官司打了7年仍败诉，南宁百货逾9000万元货款“打水漂” 公司这样回应

Core Viewpoint - The long-standing legal battle involving Nanning Department Store has concluded with the final ruling from the Nanning Intermediate People's Court, which upheld the lower court's decision, denying the company's appeal and confirming that it cannot recover over 90 million yuan in claims related to seafood trade disputes [2][9][10]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Nanning Department Store filed lawsuits against nine companies, including Zhanjiang Manxian Seafood Co., Ltd. and Zhanjiang Xujun Seafood Co., Ltd., claiming a total of approximately 92.19 million yuan in damages due to unpaid seafood trade debts [6][9]. - The legal disputes began in August 2018 and have spanned seven years, with previous court rulings indicating insufficient evidence for the company's claims [6][7]. - The final ruling determined that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, leading to the rejection of Nanning Department Store's appeal [10][14]. Group 2: Financial Implications - The company had previously fully provisioned for bad debts related to the disputed seafood trade, amounting to approximately 76 million yuan and corresponding penalties, which will not be recoverable following the court's decision [8][10]. - Nanning Department Store's financial report for the first half of 2025 indicated a revenue of 280 million yuan, a decrease of 2.32% year-on-year, and a net loss attributable to shareholders of approximately 13.38 million yuan, marking a shift from profit to loss [13][11]. - The company has faced continuous losses in net profit, with the net profit excluding non-recurring gains and losses showing a loss of approximately 21.21 million yuan, indicating ongoing financial challenges [11][13]. Group 3: Business Operations and Compliance - The seafood trade disputes were linked to 30 transactions identified by the Guangxi Securities Regulatory Bureau as not involving real goods, which included the companies involved in the lawsuits [7][16]. - Nanning Department Store has acknowledged the existence of contractual relationships with the upstream suppliers but claimed that these suppliers failed to deliver the goods as per the agreements [16]. - The company has stated that it has completed rectifications in accordance with regulatory guidance regarding the identified issues in its seafood trading operations [16].