五中介负14.5％连带责任，首例应用损失核定模型债券虚假陈述案宣判

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has made a landmark ruling in the case of Shanghai Huaxin International Group Co., Ltd. regarding false statements in bond issuance, marking a significant development in the judicial practice of bond false statement liability disputes in China [2][3]. Group 1: Case Details - The court determined that the losses caused by false statements amounted to 128 million yuan, with five intermediary institutions bearing a total joint liability of 14.5% for the bond underwriting, resulting in a total compensation of 18.54 million yuan [2][4]. - The case involved the issuance of bonds by Shanghai Huaxin, which was once a star enterprise in the capital market, but faced financial fraud allegations in 2018, leading to a significant drop in bond prices and eventual bankruptcy [4][5]. - The plaintiff, a rural commercial bank, claimed that the bond issuance documents contained significant omissions and misrepresentations, seeking full joint compensation for economic losses totaling over 232 million yuan [5][6]. Group 2: Judicial Innovations - This case is notable for being the first to introduce third-party professional institutions to explore the "bond value comparison method" for loss calculation, which deducts losses caused by non-false statement factors [3][8]. - The court's decision to involve a third-party institution for loss assessment is seen as an important innovation in judicial practice, particularly given the complexities involved in determining losses from bond false statements [8][10]. - The Shanghai Financial Court's ruling emphasized the need for stricter internal control mechanisms among underwriters, accountants, and rating agencies, aiming to enhance their professional standards in bond issuance and financial verification [6][10]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - The ruling sends a clear signal to strengthen the responsibilities of market gatekeepers, indicating that intermediary institutions must exercise due diligence in their roles [5][6]. - The court's approach to assigning liability in a tiered manner encourages a more nuanced understanding of the responsibilities of different intermediary institutions, which could help mitigate excessive impacts on the industry from blanket joint liability [6][11]. - The case highlights the necessity for transparency in the loss calculation process and suggests the establishment of a registry for financial judicial appraisal institutions to enhance the credibility of conclusions in similar cases [11].