Core Points - The article outlines measures to protect the rights of small and medium-sized investors in Shanghai New World Co., Ltd. and emphasizes the importance of considering their interests in major decisions [2][3] - It establishes a framework for separate voting for small and medium-sized investors on significant matters that affect their interests [3][4] Group 1: Definition and Scope - Small and medium-sized investors are defined as those who do not hold more than 5% of the company's shares or are not company directors or senior management [2] - Major matters affecting small and medium-sized investors include the election of directors, changes in fundraising purposes, and other matters as required by regulatory authorities [3][4] Group 2: Voting Procedures - The company will utilize a combination of on-site and online voting for shareholder meetings, allowing small and medium-sized investors to choose their preferred voting method [3][4] - Specific procedures for separate voting include registering the names and shareholdings of small and medium-sized investors and announcing their attendance separately [3][4] Group 3: Disclosure Requirements - Meeting records and resolutions must indicate whether there are significant matters affecting small and medium-sized investors, including details on their attendance and voting results [4][6] - The company is required to disclose the separate voting matters for small and medium-sized investors in the shareholder meeting notifications and provide clear instructions for online voting [6][8]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the importance of protecting the legal rights of small and medium investors as a foundation for the sustainable and healthy development of the capital market [1] - The current legal framework for protecting small and medium investors is expected to become more robust and effective [1] Group 2 - Small and medium investors are at a disadvantage in terms of investment experience, information access, and analytical skills, making them vulnerable to violations such as false statements, insider trading, and market manipulation [2] - From March 2021 to March 2025, the Beijing Financial Court accepted 9,101 cases of securities fraud liability disputes, with 9,077 cases (99.7%) related to securities false statement liability [2] Group 3 - The legal system for false statement civil lawsuits is more developed, leading to a higher number of lawsuits related to false statements compared to other violations [3] - Investors can also seek compensation for losses caused by insider trading and market manipulation under the Securities Law [3] Group 4 - The Supreme People's Court's new regulations have removed the pre-litigation procedures for false statement civil lawsuits, allowing investors to file lawsuits without waiting for administrative or criminal penalties [4] - The main challenge in these cases lies in the burden of proof, particularly in establishing causation and loss [4] Group 5 - The introduction of the new regulations is expected to ease the burden of proof for investors, but it will take time for the system to fully implement these changes [5] - Future improvements in the litigation process and better communication between lawyers, courts, and regulatory bodies are anticipated [5] Group 6 - The new Securities Law has established mechanisms for representative lawsuits and special representative lawsuits to address collective disputes among investors [6] - The Beijing Financial Court is exploring an innovative "dual-track dual-platform" mechanism for resolving collective disputes, combining representative lawsuits with demonstration judgment mechanisms [6] Group 7 - Both representative lawsuits and demonstration judgments can enhance trial efficiency and reduce the cost of rights protection for investors [7] - The Supreme Court and the Securities Regulatory Commission have established a diversified dispute resolution mechanism to provide alternatives to litigation for investors [7] Group 8 - In false statement liability disputes, accurately identifying the responsible parties is crucial for protecting investors' rights and increasing the cost of violations [8] - The determination of civil liability among various defendants, including issuers and intermediaries, is a key focus in these cases [8] Group 9 - Recent judicial practices have introduced proportional joint liability to determine the responsibility of intermediary institutions in false statement cases [9] - This approach considers the subjective fault of the intermediary and the causal relationship between their negligence and the resulting damages [9] Group 10 - There is often a discrepancy between the amount compensated and the actual losses incurred by investors, which can be confusing [10] - The court determines compensation based on the actual losses incurred due to false statements, which may not cover all losses experienced by the investor [10] Group 11 - The legal basis for claims related to securities false statements is tort liability, which requires precise determination of damages and causation [11] Group 12 - The increase in civil compensation cases related to market manipulation and insider trading highlights the need for judicial interpretations in these areas [12] - The current Securities Law includes provisions for civil liability related to insider trading and market manipulation, but remains somewhat general [12] Group 13 - There is ongoing academic debate regarding the necessity of judicial interpretations for civil compensation related to insider trading and market manipulation [13] - Establishing a clear framework for civil liability in these cases is essential for ensuring investor compensation [13]