“空壳公司”发行1亿元私募债案，终审判决落地！

Core Viewpoint - Zhongshan Securities is held jointly liable for 30% of the compensation alongside Beiji Haotian in a securities fraud case stemming from the issuance of private bonds by a shell company [2][8]. Group 1: Case Background - The dispute originated from a private bond issuance in March 2013, where Beiji Haotian, a company with no actual operations and zero tax payments, fraudulently obtained approval from the Shanghai Stock Exchange to issue 100 million yuan in private bonds, with Zhongshan Securities acting as the underwriter [7]. - In 2018, after the bonds defaulted, the investor Zhongjin Innovation sued Beiji Haotian and Zhongshan Securities for securities fraud, leading to a lengthy legal process [7]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The first-instance judgment in 2021 ordered Beiji Haotian to compensate Zhongjin Innovation 32.94 million yuan for losses, with Zhongshan Securities held jointly liable for the compensation [7]. - Zhongshan Securities appealed the decision, and the second-instance court initially dismissed Zhongjin Innovation's claims, allowing Zhongshan Securities to reverse a provision of 52.3755 million yuan, thus exempting them from joint liability [8]. Group 3: Final Judgment - The Supreme People's Court's final ruling included five key points: cancellation of the previous judgment, confirmation of Zhongjin Innovation's 27 million yuan claim against Beiji Haotian, joint liability of specific individuals for the debt, and Zhongshan Securities' 30% joint liability with Beiji Haotian [8]. - The announcement also revealed that Zhongshan Securities and its parent company had been involved in litigation and arbitration cases totaling approximately 53.2184 million yuan over the past 12 months [8]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The case raises questions about the responsibilities of intermediary institutions in securities fraud, highlighting that they may also face joint liability if they fail to perform due diligence [10]. - The precedent set by this case, along with the notable "Wuyang Bond Case," emphasizes the need for intermediaries to provide independent and accurate information to investors, as misleading reports can lead to significant investor losses [10].