Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court ruled on a case involving false statements in bond issuance by Shanghai Huaxin International Group, marking a significant precedent in the interbank bond market regarding securities fraud liability [1][2][4] Group 1: Case Background - The case involves a rural commercial bank suing various intermediary institutions for compensation due to false statements in bond issuance documents by Shanghai Huaxin, which issued over 40 billion yuan in bonds from 2014 to 2017 [1][2] - The plaintiff, a rural commercial bank, invested over 200 million yuan in the bonds, which subsequently defaulted [2][3] Group 2: Court Ruling - The court determined that five intermediary institutions, including Postal Savings Bank and CICC, are liable for a total loss of approximately 128 million yuan, with specific percentages of liability assigned to each [2][4] - The ruling specified that the defendants must bear joint liability for the losses, with Postal Savings Bank and CICC responsible for 5% each, while other intermediaries have lower percentages [2][4] Group 3: Loss Assessment Methodology - The court commissioned a third-party professional agency to assess the losses caused by non-fraudulent statements, utilizing the "bond value comparison method" and considering various factors such as macroeconomic conditions and the issuer's operational status [3][4] - The assessment was divided into three phases: from issuance to disclosure, from disclosure to default, and from default to bankruptcy ruling, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the losses [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has introduced a new method for assessing damages in bond false statement liability disputes, utilizing third-party professional institutions and the "bond value comparison method" to deduct losses caused by non-false statement actions [1][2][4] Group 1: Case Background - A rural commercial bank purchased 200 million yuan of medium-term notes issued by a company in the interbank bond market in 2017 [1] - The issuer faced significant financial fraud allegations in 2018, leading to a downgrade of its bond rating from AAA to C and a substantial default by September 2018 [1] - The rural commercial bank claimed that the issuance documents contained significant omissions and misrepresentations, seeking over 232 million yuan in damages from multiple defendants [1] Group 2: Court Findings - The court found that the issuance documents contained significant information disclosure violations, constituting false statements that were material [3] - The third-party professional institution's method for assessing bond losses was deemed fair and reasonable, aligning with bond pricing principles and market characteristics [3] - The court ordered the defendants to collectively pay over 128 million yuan in damages, with liability distributed among them based on their degree of negligence [3] Group 3: Legal and Methodological Innovations - The Shanghai Financial Court previously pioneered the use of third-party institutions for calculating losses from stock investment due to false statements, establishing a replicable judicial experience [4] - This case marks a significant advancement in the methodology for assessing losses from bond false statements, addressing the unique characteristics of bond pricing and market dynamics [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has publicly ruled on a case involving a rural commercial bank and several other parties regarding false statements in the interbank bond market, marking a significant development in the judicial practice of bond-related disputes in China [1] Group 1: Case Details - The case involves a rural commercial bank as the plaintiff and multiple defendants, including another bank, a financial company, a law firm, an accounting firm, a credit rating agency, a trust company, and a third-party credit company [1] - This case is notable for being the first in China to introduce third-party professional institutions in bond false statement liability disputes [1] Group 2: Legal Innovations - The court explored the application of the "bond value comparison method" and related models to reasonably deduct losses caused by non-false statement behaviors [1]