剑南春的改制，曾经风波不断，其中最关键的问题，是在这次改制过程中到底有没有造成国有资产流失。 实际上，有关剑南春改制是否造成过国有资产流失这一问题，曾长期受到过各方关注，只是在谜底揭开之前，该问题一直是人们长期探究而不得真相的一道 疑云。 作者︱余在洋 近日，有关剑南春的一则消息引发业界关注——2003年改制为民企且经历过一系列风波后，时隔22年，国资再度回归！这就意味着，在剑南春的牌桌上，重 新洗牌已经在所难免。 根据天眼查的股权变动信息显示，拥有政府背景的绵竹市国有资产事务中心，通过认缴1.37亿元出资额的方式，获得剑南春集团14.51%股权，由此成为公司 第二大股东。 与此同时，四川剑南春（集团）有限责任公司的注册资本也已经从8.08亿元增至约9.46亿元人民币。该增资动作，在9月12日的工商变更中已得到体现，也代 表着国资在剑南春的股东身份从法理上得到了确认。 在改制之初，曾经有颇具影响力的财经媒体，针对改制中的国有资产流失问题，以《尴尬剑南春》为题对此发出过诘问，但背后的真相始终未能浮出水面。 其后，在2012年8月份，剑南春爆发了一场影响深远的"改制风波"——由于职工追索改制权益导致的冲突，引发了 ...

2012年12月18日 作者：民营经济报 陈小平 "10年了，职工投资1万元才收益1800元，不闹腾才怪呢！" ——某酒企高层 按公司现在的资产，员工持股估值至少达到10亿以上。——职工算账 这两天，剑南春集团管理层很忙。 《民营经济报》记者发现，剑南春集团董事长乔天明的手机一直处于关机状态，而该公司公关部长李锦的电话也无人接听。记者给李锦发去要求采访的短 信，也犹如石沉大海。 一位接近剑南春的人士告诉记者，剑南春集团管理高层最近一直忙于和职工代表谈判，协助绵竹市委、市政府平息广大职工的情绪，"应该没时间理记 者，此时也不方便说什么"。 四川某酒业集团一位高层人士对本报记者说："10年了，物价都涨成啥样了，剑南春资产也翻了不知多少倍，可职工投资1万元才收益1800元，不闹腾才怪 呢！" 【往昔】 股权改制：曾经的成功范例 记者了解到，此事是由8月10日剑南春集团颁布的新改革方案而引爆：公司要求2003年改制后持股员工将《四川剑南春集团有限责任公司员工信托持 股》，更换为《四川剑南春集团有限责任公司员工信托持股收益份额证明书》。简而言之，就是当年的职工持股转为委托投资理财，股东身份一夜之间将 取消。 经过这一事 ...

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].