“空壳公司”发行1亿元私募债案，终审判决落地

Core Viewpoint - The final judgment regarding a dispute caused by the illegal issuance of private bonds by a "shell company" has been reached, with Zhongshan Securities bearing joint liability for compensation within a 30% range alongside Beiji Haotian [1] 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 private bonds worth 100 million yuan, with Zhongshan Securities as the underwriter [4] - In 2018, after Beiji Haotian defaulted on the bonds, Zhongjin Innovation, as an investor, sued Beiji Haotian and Zhongshan Securities for securities fraud [4] - The initial ruling in 2021 ordered Beiji Haotian to compensate Zhongjin Innovation 32.94 million yuan for losses, with Zhongshan Securities held jointly liable [4] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The second-instance court reversed the initial ruling, dismissing Zhongjin Innovation's claims and allowing Zhongshan Securities to reverse a provision of 52.3755 million yuan, thus exempting them from joint liability [5] - Zhongjin Innovation applied for a retrial, leading to a final judgment that included five key points, confirming a 27 million yuan debt owed by Beiji Haotian and establishing Zhongshan Securities' joint liability for 30% of the compensation [5] Group 3: Industry Implications - The case raises questions about the responsibilities of underwriting firms in fraudulent bond issuances, highlighting the potential for joint liability for intermediary institutions [6] - The "Wuyang Bond Case" serves as a precedent, where intermediary institutions were also held liable for investor losses, emphasizing the need for diligence and accountability among underwriters [6][7] - Legal experts suggest that investors should be cautious when investing in such bonds due to the complexities involved in understanding the underlying assets and the lengthy process of seeking redress after defaults [7]