Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling in the "Huaxin Bond" false statement case has sparked ongoing discussions in the market regarding the responsibilities of intermediary institutions and the need for a balanced approach to due diligence and penalties in financial fraud cases [1][2]. Group 1: Responsibilities of Intermediary Institutions - The ruling indicates a trend towards limiting the liability of intermediary institutions, with law firms found to have no fault and other institutions bearing only 0.5% to 5% of joint liability [1]. - Experts suggest that intermediary institutions should collaborate effectively and not evade due diligence responsibilities due to low fees [1]. - There is a call for a more reasonable liability distribution system that includes fair liability and caps on responsibilities in bond false statement cases [1]. Group 2: Rating Agencies' Responsibilities - There is a divergence in judicial practice regarding the boundary of rating agencies' duty of care, with some courts holding them to a higher standard than others [2]. - The cancellation of mandatory ratings for bond issuances in 2021 has altered the legal responsibility framework for rating agencies, making ratings optional rather than essential [2]. - Experts emphasize the need for rating agencies to enhance their credibility and differentiation to effectively serve as risk assessors in the market [3]. Group 3: Institutional Investors' Due Diligence - Institutional investors in the bond market should also bear some due diligence responsibilities to avoid over-reliance on ratings [5]. - The unique composition of bond market investors, primarily professional institutions, necessitates a tailored approach to liability and evidence requirements in disputes [5]. - Enhancing due diligence capabilities is crucial for preventing bond fraud, and there is a high expectation for intermediary institutions to provide professional support during this process [5]. Group 4: Compliance and Legal Awareness - There is an increasing expectation for intermediary institutions to enhance their compliance awareness and risk management practices [6]. - The legal effectiveness of disclaimers used by rating agencies may be challenged in judicial practice, suggesting a need for clearer liability limits [6]. - A comprehensive approach to criminal compliance is necessary, as intermediary institutions may face criminal liability even if they did not lead fraudulent activities [6].