Core Viewpoint - The stock price of Lijun Co., Ltd. experienced a significant rise followed by a notable decline, coinciding with a legal dispute regarding unpaid project funds with a major contractor [1][5]. Group 1: Stock Performance - From May 6 to May 19, Lijun Co., Ltd. saw its stock price increase significantly, achieving "9 days 8 boards" of gains [1]. - Since the peak on May 19, the company's stock price has dropped nearly 20% [1][5]. Group 2: Legal Dispute - Lijun Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lijun Co., Ltd., has been sued by China Metallurgical North (Dalian) Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. for unpaid project funds amounting to 33.73 million yuan [2]. - The lawsuit stems from a procurement contract related to the SINO iron ore project, with a total contract value of 173 million yuan, of which Lijun Holdings has already paid 120 million yuan [2]. - The company claims the non-payment is due to quality issues with the delivered work, and it intends to actively communicate and defend its rights in the legal proceedings [2][4].

Core Viewpoint - Beijing Capital Online Technology Co., Ltd. has reported that a portion of its fundraising special account has been frozen by the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing due to a contractual dispute with Tianxiang Ruiyi Technology Co., Ltd. [1][2] Group 1: Financial Impact - The amount frozen in the special account is 6,224,699.02 yuan, which represents 1.82% of the net proceeds from the company's A-share issuance in 2022 and a negligible impact on the company's recent audited net assets [2] - The company asserts that the frozen funds will not significantly affect the implementation of its fundraising investment projects or its normal operations and management [2] Group 2: Legal Context - As of the announcement date, the case related to the asset preservation is in the pre-litigation mediation stage, and the company has not received any formal legal documents from the court regarding the case [2] - The freezing of funds is a result of Tianxiang Ruiyi's lawsuit and request for property preservation due to payment disputes between the two companies [1][2] Group 3: Company Response - The company plans to assert its legal rights and take necessary measures to protect the interests of the company and its shareholders, aiming to lift the bank account freeze as soon as possible [2] - The company will continue to monitor the situation and fulfill its information disclosure obligations based on subsequent developments [2]

Group 1 - The core issue involves a contract dispute between Impression Dinosaur Cultural Art Co., Ltd. and Guilin Dinosaur Valley Cultural Technology Co., Ltd., along with other parties, regarding the failure to complete theater construction as per the cooperation agreement [1][3] - The first-instance court ruled against Impression Dinosaur's claims, leading to an appeal to the Guangxi High Court [1][3] - The Guangxi High Court has recently issued judgments and rulings on both cases, including the annulment of the first-instance court's decisions and remanding the cases for retrial [4][5] Group 2 - The Guangxi High Court determined that the cooperation agreement could not be continued due to a contractual deadlock, thus ruling for its termination [4][5] - The court's ruling does not immediately resolve issues related to breach of contract and damages, which will require further examination by the first-instance court [4][5] - The company has stated that the judgment to terminate the cooperation agreement will not affect its main business operations, but the implications of the ruling on profits remain uncertain pending further legal proceedings [6]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between two listed companies in Shaanxi, SanDa Membrane and Blue Sky Technology, centers around a contract worth 58.61 million yuan related to lithium extraction equipment, with a recent court ruling requiring SanDa Membrane to pay 48.29 million yuan to Blue Sky Technology [1][10]. Group 1: Contractual Dispute - The conflict originated from a contract signed in March 2022 for the supply and installation of lithium extraction equipment, valued at 114 million yuan, as part of a larger project [4][7]. - SanDa Membrane claims that Blue Sky Technology failed to meet installation deadlines, leading to economic losses and justifying their counterclaim for 38.73 million yuan [4][7]. - The court ruled in favor of Blue Sky Technology, ordering SanDa Membrane to pay the specified amount and rejecting SanDa's counterclaims [5][10]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - SanDa Membrane plans to appeal the first-instance ruling, indicating that the legal battle may continue into a second trial [2][10]. - The ongoing litigation has resulted in the freezing of 58.61 million yuan of SanDa Membrane's assets, impacting its financial operations [4][12]. Group 3: Financial Impact - SanDa Membrane reported a significant decline in net cash flow from operating activities, down 78.38% year-on-year to 12.19 million yuan, attributed to the legal disputes and asset freezes [17]. - The company has also faced additional arbitration related to another project, further complicating its financial situation [12][16]. Group 4: Broader Context - Both companies are experiencing multiple legal challenges, with Blue Sky Technology also facing a lawsuit for 53.5 million yuan from an insurance company related to an accident involving another party [20].

Core Viewpoint - Actor Tong Zhuo publicly accused 33 affiliated companies of tax evasion, emphasizing the importance of tax fairness for social development and public welfare [1]. Group 1: Allegations and Actions - Tong Zhuo submitted materials to relevant authorities regarding the tax evasion of 33 affiliated companies, calling for an investigation and urging others to join in protecting social justice [1]. - In a follow-up statement, Tong Zhuo clarified that his actions were not driven by a narrow mindset but were a legitimate effort to defend his legal rights and uphold the law [3]. - The tax authority in Shenyang has acknowledged receipt of the complaint but has not provided further details on whether an investigation will be initiated [3]. Group 2: Company Affiliations and Legal Issues - Tong Zhuo is associated with three companies, all of which are currently in a state of cancellation, including the recent cancellation of Liaoning Tong Xuehui Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. in August 2024 [7]. - A contract dispute involving Liaoning Liao Guang Media Co., Ltd., an affiliate of Tong Zhuo's former studio, is set to be heard in court on May 6, 2024 [7]. - The company Liaoning Liao Guang Media Co., Ltd. is co-owned by Hainan Ying'an Technology Co., Ltd. and Tong Zhuo's former agent, Guo Han, holding 90% and 10% of the shares respectively [7].

每经记者 陈鹏丽 每经编辑 张益铭 据悉，原告一与原告二是关联企业，均为大全能源提供方硅芯加工服务，由大全能源提供多晶硅料，原 告一负责硅棒拉晶，原告二负责硅芯切割。 本次合同纠纷源于2022年。当年1月，大全能源与原告一签署一份《业务合作协议》，约定采用委外加 工的模式将硅料交由原告一及其关联方进行硅芯加工。同时约定在确保符合大全能源的质量指标要求的 前提下，当原告一的实缴注册资本达到人民币3349万元及以上时，大全能源及其关联公司对原告一及其 关联公司负有独家采购义务。2022年7月，大全能源与原告二签署了《年度合同》。 但《年度合同》有效期（2023年4月30日）届满后，大全能源未与原告二续签新合同，且未再向原告二 下达采购订单。原告方诉称，有理由认为大全能源及其关联方已自行转向与其他供应商合作，这构成对 《业务合作协议》的根本性违约，故向法院提起诉讼，要求大全能源赔偿其经济损失共计3.88亿元等诉 讼请求。 2023年9月，原告向法院申请变更诉讼请求，将赔偿金额由3.88亿元增加至19.59亿元。2024年1月，大全 能源正式进入与两家供应商合同纠纷的应诉程序；去年5月，原告方又变更并撤回部分诉讼请求 ...