Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court ruled on the bond issuance false statement case involving Shanghai Huaxin International Group, determining that five institutions share 14.5% of the liability for the plaintiff's loss of 128 million yuan, amounting to over 18.56 million yuan [3][14]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The bonds in question were issued by Shanghai Huaxin in 2017, with a total issuance amount of 2.5 billion yuan and a coupon rate of 7.5% [3]. - The total amount of bonds issued by the issuer from 2014 to 2017 exceeded 40 billion yuan, indicating the case's significant scale and the number of affected investors [3]. Legal Proceedings - The focus of the dispute included whether Shanghai Huaxin engaged in false statements, the materiality of such statements, and the relationship between the plaintiff's investment losses and these statements [5]. - The court found that Shanghai Huaxin had concealed numerous related parties and failed to disclose significant related transactions, which severely impacted investors' judgment regarding the company's financial health [9][10]. Evidence and Investigation - The plaintiff's legal team undertook extensive investigations, analyzing bond prospectuses and related transactions to establish evidence of false statements [6]. - The complexity of the corporate structure of Shanghai Huaxin, with over 70 associated companies, posed challenges in tracing the relationships and transactions [6][7]. Court's Findings - The court recognized that the issuer had hidden at least 29 related parties and misrepresented transaction amounts, which constituted significant false statements [9]. - The court set March 1, 2018, as the disclosure date, coinciding with media reports about the investigation of the actual controller of Huaxin [10]. Loss Assessment - A third-party expert opinion was commissioned to assess the losses incurred by investors, distinguishing between losses due to false statements and those from other factors [11]. - The assessment concluded that approximately 1.28 billion yuan of the total losses were attributable to false statements, with a detailed breakdown of the contributing factors to the bond price decline [12][13]. Implications for Investor Rights - The ruling sets a precedent for investor claims in cases of false statements without prior regulatory investigations, providing a new avenue for investor protection [16]. - The case highlights the importance of establishing recognized standards for loss assessment models to ensure judicial credibility and consistency in similar cases [15].

华信案涉案金额巨大、牵涉投资者众多。此案审判周期长达三年多，判决对中介机构责任的划定可能关 系到众多同类案件的结果，因而引发业内广泛关注。 10月28日，上海金融法院对上海华信国际集团有限公司（下称上海华信）债券发行虚假陈述案作出一审 判决。 邮政储蓄银行股份有限公司、中国国际金融股份有限公司、上会会计师事务所、联合资信评估股份有限 公司和中诚信国际信用评级有限责任公司等五家机构应对原告某农商银行1.28亿元损失合计承担14.5% 的连带责任，即1856万余元。 投资人购买的债券为上海华信2017 年度第二期中期票据，发行金额25亿元，发行价格100元，票息 7.5%。债券发行主体、也是此案的第三人上海华信是华信退（曾用名华信国际、*ST华信 002018.SZ） 第一大股东，此前已被法院裁定破产。 据上海金融法院统计，案涉发行人于2014年到2017年发行公司债、银行间债券等系列债券，发行总金额 400亿余元。华信案涉案金额巨大、牵涉投资者众多。此案审判周期长达三年多，判决对中介机构责任 的划定可能关系到众多同类案件的结果，因而引发业内广泛关注。 原告举证虚假陈述 第一财经从法庭获悉，本案争议焦点包括发行人 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court ruled on a case involving false statements in bond issuance by Shanghai Huaxin International Group, ordering five intermediary institutions to bear joint liability for the investment losses of over 128 million yuan incurred by the plaintiff [1][5]. Group 1: Case Details - This case marks the first instance of a securities false statement liability dispute in the interbank bond market, involving a total bond issuance amount exceeding 40 billion yuan from 2014 to 2017 [1][3]. - The plaintiff, a rural commercial bank, claimed that there were false statements during the bond issuance process, leading to significant financial losses [1][3]. - The court found that the issuance documents contained significant omissions and misrepresentations regarding corporate governance, actual control, and financial transactions, constituting false statements [3][5]. Group 2: Financial Implications - The court determined that the plaintiff's losses due to false statements amounted to over 128 million yuan after accounting for non-false statement-related losses [5][7]. - The five intermediary institutions were ordered to bear joint liability for the losses, with compensation responsibilities ranging from 0.5% to 5% [1][7]. - The introduction of third-party professional institutions to assess losses related to non-false statements represents a significant breakthrough in the judicial process for such cases [5].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court ruled on a case involving false statements in bond issuance by Shanghai Huaxin International Group, ordering five intermediary institutions to bear joint liability for the plaintiff's investment losses of over 128 million yuan [1][5]. Group 1: Case Details - The case marks the first instance of a securities false statement liability dispute in the interbank bond market, involving bonds issued by the company from 2014 to 2017, totaling over 40 billion yuan [1][5]. - The plaintiff, a rural commercial bank, claimed that there were false statements during the bond issuance process and sought full compensation of over 232 million yuan from the underwriting bank, law firms, accounting firms, and rating agencies [3][5]. Group 2: Court Findings - The court found that the issuance documents contained significant omissions and misrepresentations regarding corporate governance, actual controllers, financial company functions, and related party transactions, constituting a material false statement [3][5]. - The court accepted the loss assessment method provided by a third-party professional institution, which was deemed fair and reasonable, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff's losses due to false statements amounted to over 128 million yuan [5][7]. Group 3: Liability and Compensation - The court ordered the defendants, including a bank, a financial company, an accounting firm, and a credit rating agency, to bear joint compensation responsibilities for the plaintiff's losses, with liability percentages set at 5%, 5%, 3%, 1%, and 0.5% respectively [7].

由于发行的数只债券违约，上海华信被多家投资机构告上法庭。因此，此次审判结果也备受关注。 上海金融法院根据《证券法》第八十五条、第一百六十三条，以及最高人民法院关于审理证券市场虚假 陈述，侵权民事赔偿案件的构成相关规定，判决作为被告的五家相关中介机构，承担相应的赔偿责任。 其中，邮储银行、中金公司应在判决生效之日起10日内，对原告约1.28亿元损失各自占5%，即639.34万 元范围内承担连带责任；上会会计师事务所、联合资信、中诚信国际三家中介，则应于判决生效之日起 10日内，对原告上述损失中的3%、1%、0.5%，即383.6万元、127.9万、63.93万元的范围内，承担连带 责任，驳回原告的其余诉讼请求。 法院委托第三方专业机构根据债券定价的基本原理，探索应用"债券价值对比法"及相关模型，对非虚假 陈述行为造成的损失予以核定。 10月28日，上海金融法院对上海华信国际集团债券发行文件虚假陈述案作出一审判决。 去年4月，上海金融法院官方曾披露这一案件。某农村商业银行以第三人某国际集团有限公司发行债券 中存在虚假陈述为由，起诉债券主承销商、律师事务所、会计师事务所、评级机构等中介机构，承担赔 偿责任的证券虚假 ...

某农商行于2017年认购发行人某信公司在全国银行间债券市场发行的中期票据2亿元。2018年3月，某信 公司因被媒体披露涉巨额财务造假以及实际控制人被调查等情况，公司债券价格短期内持续下跌，评级 亦从AAA逐步下调为C。后该中期票据于2018年9月发生实质性违约，发行人于2019年11月被法院裁定 破产清算。某农商行起诉主张，该中期票据发行文件中存在隐瞒、遗漏重大信息，构成虚假陈述行为， 发行时的证券中介服务机构，包括主承销商、法律服务机构、会计师事务所、主体和债项评级机构未尽 勤勉尽责义务，要求各被告对其损失2.32亿余元承担全额连带赔偿责任。 庭审中，各方围绕法律适用、虚假陈述行为及其重大性、交易及损失因果关系、中介机构过错、赔偿责 任范围、诉讼时效等主要争议焦点进行了举证、质证和辩论。 （原标题：全国首例应用专业损失核定模型债券虚假陈述纠纷案今日宣判） 10月28日，上海金融法院公开宣判原告某农商行与被告某银行、某金公司、某律所、某会计师事务所、 某资信公司、某诚信公司及第三人某信公司银行间债券市场中期票据虚假陈述责任纠纷一案。该案在我 国债券虚假陈述责任纠纷司法实践中首次引入第三方专业机构，探索应用"债 ...

人民财讯10月28日电，10月28日，上海金融法院公开宣判原告某农商行与被告某银行、某金公司、某律 所、某会计师事务所、某资信公司、某诚信公司及第三人某信公司银行间债券市场中期票据虚假陈述责 任纠纷一案。该案在我国债券虚假陈述责任纠纷司法实践中首次引入第三方专业机构，探索应用"债券 价值对比法"及相关模型，合理扣除非虚假陈述行为造成的损失。 ...