Group 1 - The company has reported a significant development in the ongoing equity dispute involving its former executives, with a criminal report filed against five individuals for alleged misconduct [2] - The five individuals, all former executives of the company, include the former chairman and other high-ranking officials who left the company after 2018 [2] - The company is currently operating normally, and the chairman continues to fulfill his duties despite the legal proceedings [3] Group 2 - The company received a warning from the Shanghai regulatory authority regarding inaccurate disclosures of executive compensation in its annual reports for 2016 and 2018 [3] - The company has initiated civil lawsuits against the former executives to recover funds allegedly misappropriated through improper insurance transactions [3] - The current management has previously raised concerns about potential violations of disclosure regulations by former executives during a corporate restructuring, which led to delays in financial reporting [3] Group 3 - The company's shareholding structure indicates that the largest shareholder is a consortium of entities controlled by Ji Lin, holding 30.062% of the shares, while the second-largest shareholder is Dazhong Transportation with a 19.89% stake [4] - Earlier this year, the company's controlling shareholders attempted a partial tender offer to increase their control but faced limited participation due to a rapid increase in the company's stock price [5]

来源：杭州网 据广西高院消息，男子钓鱼触碰高压线身亡家属索赔百万，法院判供电公司赔偿21万余元。该消息在网 络引发热议。 案情回顾 关于本案侵权责任如何划分的问题，法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国民法典》第一千二百四十条"从 事高空、高压、地下挖掘活动或者使用高速轨道运输工具造成他人损害的，经营者应当承担侵权责任; 但是，能够证明损害是因受害人故意或者不可抗力造成的，不承担责任。被侵权人对损害的发生有重大 过失的，可以减轻经营者的责任。"被告供电公司作为涉案高压输电线路的经营者，虽不能证明受害人 甘某触电死亡是因其故意或者不可抗力造成的，但已尽到了充分的警示和巡视维护义务。 而受害人甘某作为完全民事行为能力人，应当意识到在高压电线下钓鱼的危险性，其自身存在重大过 失。 因此，法院依法判决被告供电公司承担本案次要民事责任（20%），受害人甘某自行承担主要责任 （80%）。据此，法院在依法确认原告的丧葬费、死亡赔偿金、精神损害抚慰金等各项经济损失基础 上，根据上述划分的责任比例，最终判决被告供电公司赔偿原告各项经济损失共计218676元。 来源：广西高院 一同钓鱼的三位村民见状，立即拨打了120急救电话。然而，尽管 ...

法院审理后认为，首先案涉的钓鱼活动并无组织者。三人参与的钓鱼活动具有自发组织、自愿参 与、临时性等特征，活动不存在特殊组织结构。彭军未要求其余两人服从组织和管理，在钓鱼活动中不 享有管理的权利，也未从中营利，与其余两人地位平等，彭军并非钓鱼活动的组织者，三人之间系结伴 同行关系。 其次，同行者尽到了合理注意义务。三人基于钓鱼爱好结伴同行主要是为了相互照应、友情交际， 彼此之间仅存在一般人能够预见的合理注意义务，如对同行者不慎落水、遭遇动物咬伤等显而易见的意 外，应该承担及时帮助的合理注意义务。张小伟系无既往病史的中年人，从发病到死亡时间极短，按照 专业医护人员的标准要求彭军、刘政预见张小伟死亡的可能性并及时作出反应，显然超出了合理注意义 务的限度。 近日，重庆市大渡口区人民法院审理了一起因钓友身亡引发的侵权责任纠纷案，通过综合审查原告 提交的证据材料、死者的身体状况、被告的救助过程等，认定身为被告的钓友不存在侵权行为，不应当 承担赔偿责任，依法判决驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。 张小伟、彭军、刘政三人同在重庆市大渡口区的一家公司上班，其中彭军还是张小伟的师傅，三人 都是"80后"，年纪相仿，关系亲密，经常相约一起钓 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released the 46th batch of five guiding cases on ecological and environmental protection, aiming to unify legal application, clarify adjudication rules, and enhance judicial fairness in environmental civil public interest litigation [1][2][3] Group 1: Clarification of Legal Rules - The guiding cases clarify the adjudication rules for ecological environmental infringement liability, emphasizing the balance between high-quality development and high-level protection [1] - Case 257 establishes that if a construction project has undergone an environmental impact assessment and taken protective measures, it should not be deemed to pose a significant risk to social public interests [1] - Case 258 reinforces the principle of "protection first, prevention foremost," allowing courts to take immediate measures against significant risks posed by environmental pollution [1] Group 2: Regulation of Environmental Public Interest Litigation - The guiding cases outline the examination rules for environmental public interest litigation, ensuring the effective exercise of litigation rights by parties involved [2] - Case 259 specifies that courts should only allow withdrawal of lawsuits if the plaintiff's requests regarding ecological restoration and damage compensation have been fully realized [2] - Case 260 mandates substantial review of any settlement agreements in environmental civil public interest litigation to ensure they adequately protect social public interests [2] Group 3: Cross-Administrative Jurisdiction - The guiding cases establish procedural rules for cross-administrative jurisdiction cases, enhancing ecological environmental governance and judicial support for river basins [3] - Case 261 allows higher courts to designate lower courts with environmental resource adjudication functions for cross-administrative cases, facilitating better governance [3] - The Supreme People's Court aims to integrate the concept of "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" into judicial practices, contributing to the construction of a harmonious relationship between humans and nature [3]

据"网信无锡"公众号5月21日消息，全国首批生成式AI生成内容侵权责任保险在无锡落地。 上述消息称，5月20日，中国人保财险无锡市分公司与无锡雪浪数制科技有限公司（下称"雪浪数制公 司"）签订生成式AI生成内容侵权责任保险，为该公司自主研发的雪浪工业大模型提供70万元风险保 障。 该保险旨在应对AI在训练和生成内容过程中可能面临的各类侵权风险，比如数据来源合法性争议，AI 生成内容侵犯第三方著作权、肖像权、名誉权等多方面问题。 南都记者从雪浪数制公司了解到，这份保险针对被保险人在大模型使用中无意间侵犯第三方权益，导致 第三方提起诉讼或仲裁的情形。保险的保期1年（2025年5月22日至2026年5月21日），保费1.5万元，以 被保险人实际发生的应诉费用，以及法院判决或仲裁机构认定的赔偿金额作为理赔的标准。 雪浪数制公司向南都记者表示，人保财险推出的《生成式人工智能生成内容侵权责任保险》，直击了行 业痛点，可有效分散生成式AI服务企业面临的风险。人保财险推出这款保险产品后，在无锡市委网信 办的指导和帮助下，雪浪数制公司经内部评估得出"雪浪工业大模型"可能存在侵权风险，为转移风险， 决定投保。 雪浪数制公司透露， ...

法院认为，健身中心作为具有一定危险性的游戏项目经营者，负有保障参与者安全的责任。虽然通过张 贴警示信息、游戏前告知风险等方式履行安全保障义务，但在游戏过程中未能进行充分的安全监管，未 及时发现并制止消费者的危险行为，教练在指导未成年人清理余弹时未注意周围环境变化，健身中心在 安全管理和工作人员监督方面存在明显疏漏，承担主要责任。 贝某作为完全民事行为能力人，在健身中心提醒过安全风险的情况下，未采取安全措施、未确认环境安 全便进入游戏区域，对自身安全未尽到谨慎注意的义务，应承担部分责任。 那么，小马是否有责任呢？法院认为，小马作为未成年人，对其过错判定应与其年龄和心智相符合。小 马在规定区域、教练在场的情况下发射余弹，此时贝某无防护措施出现在游戏区域，超出了未成年人可 预见并妥善应对的范围。因此，小马不存在过错，不应承担赔偿责任。 法院提醒，场所经营者、管理者，要提供安全的环境，保障游戏硬件合格合规，定期对设备进行安全检 测和维护，通过电子监控、人员巡查等方式加强动态管理。还要充分保障消费者安全，制定完善安全规 章制度，明确各项安全操作流程和标准，游戏前向参加者进行详细的安全使用说明和风险提示，游戏过 程中进行 ...