中介机构'看门人'责任

Search documents
18亿元互诉案告终!中安科与招商证券纠纷案达成“和解”
Nan Fang Du Shi Bao· 2025-09-24 10:29
Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between Zhong An Ke and the leading brokerage firm, China Merchants Securities, has concluded with both parties withdrawing their lawsuits, raising questions about the responsibilities of intermediary institutions in financial transactions [2][9]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - Zhong An Ke, formerly known as Fei Le Co., initiated a major asset restructuring in 2013, planning to acquire 100% of Zhong An Xiao Technology for a transaction value of 28.59 billion yuan [7]. - The restructuring involved violations, as Zhong An Xiao Technology included a project in its profit forecast that could not be fulfilled due to policy changes, leading to inflated asset valuations [7]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) investigated and penalized Zhong An Ke in 2019 for misleading statements, while China Merchants Securities was also fined for failing to perform due diligence [7][8]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - In October 2024, Zhong An Ke filed a lawsuit against China Merchants Securities, claiming 1.5 billion yuan in damages due to professional judgment errors [8]. - China Merchants Securities counter-sued for 287 million yuan, seeking to recover payments made to investors due to its liability in the case [8]. - The legal battle, which lasted nearly a year, ended with both parties agreeing to withdraw their lawsuits and settle the matter amicably [9][10]. Group 3: Market Implications - The resolution of the dispute has sparked discussions about the boundaries of the "gatekeeper" responsibilities of intermediary institutions, emphasizing the need for substantial judgment on project authenticity [9][11]. - Zhong An Ke's financial performance has been under pressure, with a reported net profit of only 2 million yuan in 2024, a decline of 77.76% year-on-year [11]. - The withdrawal of lawsuits allows both parties to avoid further legal exposure, particularly for China Merchants Securities, which may have faced additional risks had the case proceeded [11].