Core Viewpoint - Huayang Lianzhong Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has been penalized by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for failing to disclose significant non-operating fund occupation by its controlling shareholder and for underestimating bad debt provisions, leading to misleading financial reports [2][3][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Findings - Huayang Lianzhong failed to disclose non-operating fund occupation by its controlling shareholder, Su Tong, amounting to 181.53 million yuan, which constituted 10.02% and 7.84% of the net assets in the 2021 semi-annual and annual reports respectively [2]. - The company also underreported bad debt provisions for accounts receivable from Beijing Xinnuo Kejie Trading Co., Ltd., resulting in inflated profits of 17.33 million yuan and 69.39 million yuan in the 2021 and 2022 annual reports, representing 6.72% and 10.31% of the total profits for those periods [3]. Group 2: Penalties and Legal Implications - The CSRC has ordered Huayang Lianzhong, Su Tong, and another individual, Guo Jianjun, to correct their actions, issue warnings, and impose fines due to the violations [3][4]. - Affected investors who purchased Huayang Lianzhong's securities between August 18, 2021, and July 10, 2025, may seek compensation for losses incurred as a result of the company's misleading disclosures [4].

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 2025年9月11日，白银有色（维权）集团股份有限公司(简称：白银有色，代码：601212)发布《关于收 到中国证券监督管理委员会立案告知书的公告》，称因公司涉嫌信息披露违法违规等行为，根据《中华 人民共和国证券法》的有关规定，中国证监会决定对公司立案调查。 根据《民法典》、《证券法》及最高人民法院的关于虚假陈述民事赔偿司法解释的规定，上市公司、控 股股东、实际控制人、董监高人员及其中介机构等因虚假陈述等的证券欺诈行为导致证券投资者权益受 损的，应承担民事赔偿责任，赔偿范围包括：投资差额、佣金、印花税和利息损失等。权益受损的证券 投资者可以向有管辖权的法院提起民事赔偿诉讼。 由于白银有色涉嫌信息披露违法违规，被中国证监会立案调查，为维护证券投资者合法权益，上海汉联 律师事务所宋一欣律师向曾经购买过白银有色的证券投资者展开诉讼代理征集，代理投资者索赔诉讼， 权益受损的证券投资者可以向前述律师进行索赔登记。（宋一欣律师专栏） 宋一欣律师认为，白银有色案的索赔条件为：2025年9月11日前买入白银有色股票或债券等证券市场公 开发行产品，并在2025年9月11日及之后 ...

由于天圣制药涉嫌信息披露违法违规，被中国证监会立案调查，为维护证券投资者合法权益，上海汉联 律师事务所宋一欣律师向曾经购买过天圣制药的证券投资者展开诉讼代理征集，代理投资者索赔诉讼， 权益受损的证券投资者可以向前述律师进行索赔登记。（宋一欣律师专栏） 宋一欣律师认为，天圣制药案的索赔条件为：2025年1月9日前买入天圣制药股票或债券等证券市场公开 发行产品，并在2025年1月9日及之后卖出或继续持有的受损投资者，可以办理索赔登记。（ST天圣维 权入口） (律师对本案的提示与说明) 1.上述提示的索赔条件仅供参考，不涉及投资者任何证券投资决策和证券买卖建议。索赔的最终条件将 根据中国证监会行政处罚的结论进一步调整，并以相关法院最终生效的判决所认定的法律时点、赔付对 象、赔付范围、赔付标准、会计计算方式为准。 2.以行政处罚决定为特征的前置条件取消后，投资者虽然可以直接诉讼，但由于调查手段有限，以立案 调查通知或行政监管措施决定作为直接诉讼的依据起诉存在败诉的风险，所以，我作为专业律师提示投 资者：行政处罚决定仍然应当作为提起诉讼的必要前提之一。 3.在拟提起的民事侵权诉讼案件中，上市公司退市与否，都不影响民事索 ...

Core Viewpoint - The increasing number of investor lawsuits related to securities fraud is significantly impacting the capital market, with a notable rise in successful claims and compensation amounts awarded to investors [1][2][3]. Group 1: Investor Lawsuits and Compensation - ST Xintong has reached settlements with multiple individual investors, with a total of 1,768 lawsuits filed and claims amounting to 434 million yuan [1]. - As of April 2024, ST Xintong has received 2,760 investor lawsuits, with expected compensation nearing 400 million yuan [2]. - A total of over 50 billion yuan has been awarded to investors across 45 listed companies in compensation claims since 2020 [6]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Judicial Changes - The introduction of the new Securities Law in 2020 has established a chapter on "Investor Protection," enhancing the legal framework for investor rights and reducing the burden of proof for investors [3][4]. - The 2019 "Nine Civil Guidelines" and the 2022 regulations from the Supreme People's Court have clarified the legal processes for securities fraud cases, facilitating easier access for investors to file lawsuits [3]. Group 3: Role of Regulatory Bodies and Legal Support - The China Securities Investor Services Center (CSISC) has played a crucial role in supporting investor lawsuits, particularly in high-profile cases [9][10]. - The increase in investor lawsuits is attributed to heightened legal awareness among investors, the removal of administrative penalty prerequisites, and increased exposure of fraudulent activities by listed companies [13]. Group 4: Challenges and Considerations in Legal Proceedings - There is a notable discrepancy between the amounts claimed by investors and the compensation awarded by courts, often due to the need to establish a direct causal relationship between the fraud and the investor's losses [7][12]. - The complexity of proving damages in cases of market manipulation and insider trading has resulted in fewer successful claims in these areas compared to securities fraud [13].