ST新动力股东会现争议投票：投票是否“被代表”成为分歧点，深交所火速发出关注函

Core Viewpoint - The shareholder meeting of ST New Power revealed conflicting voting opinions from major shareholders, raising concerns about the validity of the voting process and the adherence to agreements [1][5] Group 1: Shareholder Voting Discrepancies - ST New Power's first extraordinary shareholder meeting in 2026 saw South Changda Yi Investment Co., Ltd. voting in favor of key proposals while the represented parties voted against them through online channels [1][2] - The voting conflict stems from a "Voting Rights Delegation Agreement" signed in August 2025, which terminated a previous "Joint Action Agreement" and allowed South Changda Yi to independently exercise voting rights [2][3] - The disagreement over which agreement governs the voting rights has led to significant confusion, with implications for the legitimacy of the decisions made during the meeting [6][4] Group 2: Regulatory Concerns - Following the announcement of the conflicting votes, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a notice to ST New Power, questioning whether the company violated the terms of the Joint Action Agreement [1][5] - The exchange requested clarification on the timely disclosure of the Voting Rights Delegation Agreement and its compliance with the Joint Action Agreement [1][5] - The company is required to provide a detailed account of the voting rights exercised by the involved parties since the signing of the Voting Rights Delegation Agreement [1][5] Group 3: Historical Context and Implications - The contentious proposals discussed at the meeting were a continuation of unresolved issues from the fourth extraordinary shareholder meeting in 2025, where several proposals were not approved [5][6] - The proposed amendments to the company's articles of association included provisions affecting shareholder rights, indicating ongoing tensions between management and shareholders [6][5] - Legal opinions suggest that the conflict arises from the theoretical clash between irrevocable voting rights delegation and the revocation rights outlined in civil law, necessitating a clear resolution to maintain corporate governance stability [6][4]