从“纾困共赢”到“对簿公堂”：贵州百灵与华创证券纠葛背后的多重风险

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between Guizhou Bailing's actual controller Jiang Wei and the rescue party Huachuang Securities has evolved from a "capital success story" into a courtroom battle, highlighting multiple conflicts in equity, finance, and control, and raising alarms about the frequent changes in equity and rescue models in the A-share market [1][5] Governance Structure Risks - Huachuang Securities initially entered as a financial investor, promising not to seek control, but gradually intervened in the company's operations, leading to accusations of interference in normal business decisions by Jiang Wei [2][6] - Jiang Wei's share pledge rate is at 100%, with multiple debt default risks, creating a "dual-head game" where the rescue party is deeply involved in daily operations while the actual controller faces financial pressure and loss of influence, significantly reducing strategic execution and internal management efficiency [2][6] Financial and Operational Risks - Guizhou Bailing reported a net profit loss of 415 million yuan in 2023, and due to a qualified opinion on its financial report, its stock will be subject to ST treatment starting May 2024, damaging market credibility [3][7] - The financial issues leading to the ST designation were partly due to internal conflicts, with Huachuang Securities' appointed executives reporting their own divisions [3][7] - The company has faced repeated setbacks in financing and strategic investments, with Huachuang Securities allegedly obstructing the introduction of strategic investors, resulting in missed opportunities and a vicious cycle of "rescue-stalemate-operational deterioration" [3][7] Legal and Regulatory Risks - The parties have entered a phase of legal confrontation, with Huachuang Securities seeking repayment of over 1.7 billion yuan in principal, interest, and penalties, while Jiang Wei countersues for share reduction and compensation for stock price losses [4][8] - Jiang Wei is under investigation by the CSRC for insider trading and information disclosure violations, complicating the resolution of the dispute [4][8] - The rescue fund's planned exit from 2022 to 2024 has stalled due to disagreements on buyback, reduction, and payment, leading to a failure of the rescue mechanism and resulting in prolonged litigation and asset freezes [4][8]