最高人民法院今天发布7个人民法院依法平等保护民营企业合法权益典型民商事案例，内容涵盖融资环 境优化、股东有限责任激活、历史遗留问题处置、企业名誉信用保护等多个方面。 一、依法规范金融机构行为，助力破解民营企业融资难、融资贵问题 解决融资问题是保证民营企业"稳生存""谋发展"的基础支撑，是激发民营经济创新发展的关键举措。人 民法院坚持金融服务实体经济宗旨，依法助力民营企业拓宽融资渠道，降低融资成本。通过审理金融借 款纠纷案件，严格落实国家金融监管政策，推动金融机构持续优化普惠金融供给和服务，依法规范金融 机构利息和费用收取、单方面增加发放贷款条件、中止发放贷款、提前收回贷款等行为，协同金融监管 部门推动政策落实落地，确保民营企业的合法权益不受侵害。例如，在今天发布的"某银行与某地产开 发公司等金融借款合同纠纷一案"中，银行在发放3.5亿贷款前，向企业收取1000万元"融资承诺费"，却 未提供任何相对应的服务。人民法院认定银行违反金融服务收费公开透明、质价相符原则，在收取贷款 利息之外，超出金融监管规定准许的收费范围，不当增加了借款人的融资成本，按照"砍头息"的裁判规 则，将该"融资承诺费"在借款本金中予以扣除。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The return of state-owned assets to Jian Nan Chun after 22 years of privatization indicates a significant reshuffling in the company's ownership structure, raising questions about past asset losses during its privatization process [2][4][11] Group 1: Ownership Changes - The Mianzhu State-owned Assets Administration Center acquired a 14.51% stake in Jian Nan Chun Group by contributing 137 million yuan, becoming the second-largest shareholder [2][11] - The registered capital of Jian Nan Chun increased from 808 million yuan to approximately 946 million yuan, confirming the legal status of state-owned assets in the company [2] Group 2: Historical Context - Jian Nan Chun underwent a tumultuous privatization process starting in 2003, which has been scrutinized for potential state asset losses [4][5] - The privatization led to significant internal conflicts, including a notable incident in 2012 where the then-chairman Qiao Tianming was attacked due to employee disputes over privatization rights [4][5] Group 3: Legal and Financial Implications - Qiao Tianming was implicated in a corruption case, leading to his conviction in 2018 for embezzling state assets, which confirmed the loss of state assets during the privatization [4][5] - The company has faced ongoing legal disputes regarding the legitimacy of trademark transfers, which are central to the current state-owned asset involvement [9][11] Group 4: Current Management Dynamics - Following Qiao Tianming's legal troubles, internal power struggles emerged, with Yang Dongyun and Qiao Yuzhu competing for control until Qiao Yuzhu eventually took over management in 2022 [5][7] - Despite the state-owned entity's entry, Qiao Tianming remains the chairman, while Qiao Yuzhu holds actual operational control, indicating a complex management landscape [11]

Core Viewpoint - The recent unrest among employees at Jian Nan Chun Group stems from dissatisfaction with the company's handling of employee stock ownership and perceived inequities in profit distribution, leading to negotiations with local government to address employee grievances [3][5][6]. Group 1: Employee Stock Ownership Issues - Employees invested 10,000 yuan but only received 1,800 yuan in returns over ten years, prompting frustration and demands for accountability from management [3][14]. - The company's recent reform plan has converted employee stock ownership into a trust investment model, effectively stripping employees of their shareholder status [5][13]. - Employees discovered that the management's initial investment was financed through loans, contrasting with their own cash investments, leading to feelings of betrayal [6][10]. Group 2: Management and Governance - Jian Nan Chun's management team, led by Chairman Qiao Tianming, has been accused of using a "borrowed" financing model to gain control over the company, raising questions about the true ownership structure [10][11]. - The management's past success in privatization is now overshadowed by current employee dissatisfaction and demands for transparency regarding shareholding and profit distribution [5][12]. - The new trust plan indicates that employees now hold shares in the union rather than directly in Jian Nan Chun, complicating their rights as shareholders [14]. Group 3: Employee Sentiment and Reactions - Employees express a mix of anger and disappointment, feeling that their contributions during challenging times, such as the 2008 earthquake, have not been adequately recognized or rewarded [18][19]. - Online comments from employees reflect a sense of betrayal and a demand for recognition of their rights as shareholders, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and transparency from management [19][20]. - The situation has escalated to the point where employees are calling for third-party evaluations of the company's net assets to ensure fair compensation for their shares [14].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Hongming Electronics, has a complex history and has faced multiple challenges in its IPO process, including a complicated shareholding structure, historical compliance issues, and declining financial performance [2][3][11]. Company History and Ownership Structure - Hongming Electronics, established in 1958, has undergone several ownership changes, transitioning from a state-owned enterprise to a mixed-ownership model, which has led to a complicated shareholding structure [3][4]. - The company initially had 4,526 natural shareholders, which has since reduced to 522, complicating capital operations [9]. - The company faced intense competition for control from various capital groups, including the "Zhongjingkai" faction and the "Jiuding" group, leading to legal disputes over ownership [4][5]. IPO Process and Challenges - Hongming Electronics' IPO application was accepted by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, marking it as the first IPO application for the ChiNext board in 2025 [3]. - The IPO process has been prolonged due to historical compliance issues, including improper use of funds and lack of necessary approvals [9][10]. - The company has undergone 16 rounds of IPO guidance, reflecting the complexity of its historical changes and compliance issues [8]. Financial Performance - The company has experienced a decline in revenue and net profit over the past three years, with revenues of 3.146 billion, 2.727 billion, and 2.525 billion yuan from 2022 to 2024, respectively [11]. - Net profits for the same period were 690 million, 598 million, and 418 million yuan, indicating a downward trend [11]. - The gross profit margin has also decreased significantly, from 50.28% in 2022 to 44.27% in 2024, attributed to price reductions in electronic components due to cost control by downstream clients [12]. Research and Development - R&D expenditures have been declining, with amounts of 295 million, 257 million, and 208 million yuan from 2022 to 2024, representing a shrinking investment in innovation [13]. - The ratio of R&D expenses to revenue has also decreased, which raises concerns about the company's growth potential in a market focused on innovation [13]. Capital Raising and Dividend Policy - The company plans to raise 1.951 billion yuan through its IPO, with a significant portion allocated to working capital [14]. - Hongming Electronics has distributed substantial cash dividends over the past three years, totaling 280 million yuan, which raises questions about the rationale behind large dividends followed by capital raising [15].

Core Viewpoint - Wahaha is currently facing significant controversy due to product outsourcing to Jianmailang, trademark transfer issues, and shareholder disputes, which have raised public concern and scrutiny [2][4]. Trademark Dispute - The trademark transfer from "Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co., Ltd." to "Hangzhou Wahaha Food Co., Ltd." is ongoing, with uncertainty surrounding the registration process [2][4]. - The two main stakeholders in the trademark dispute are Zong Fuli and the Shangcheng District Cultural and Tourism Group, with negotiations for the transfer of 46% shares ongoing but without an agreed price [3][4]. - Employees have indicated that the trademark transfer agreement has been deemed terminated by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, affirming that the trademark belongs to the state-controlled Hangzhou Wahaha Group [4][6]. Historical Context - The Wahaha trademark dispute has been a complex issue for nearly thirty years, involving multiple corporate restructuring events and historical disputes with foreign partners [6][8]. - The company was originally fully owned by the Shangcheng District State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, but underwent changes in ownership structure in 1999, leading to the current shareholder composition [6][7]. - Previous attempts to transfer the trademark to a joint venture with Danone were unsuccessful due to lack of approval from the State Trademark Bureau, resulting in ongoing disputes [6][7]. Future Implications - Zong Fuli's indication of launching a new brand suggests a strategic pivot in response to the trademark challenges, although this may involve significant costs and risks related to consumer perception and distribution networks [8][9]. - The complexity of Wahaha's ownership structure and the historical use of the trademark by various entities complicate any potential transition to new ownership or management [8][9].