Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes that investment agreements linked to secondary market stock prices should be deemed invalid, regardless of how they are structured, highlighting the need for regulatory attention [1] - Experts at the seminar expressed concerns that allowing controlling shareholders to privately negotiate such agreements undermines board decision-making authority, potentially hollowing out corporate governance [1] - The discussion pointed out that entrepreneurs often face a dilemma where not signing these agreements leads to funding challenges, while signing them results in becoming "capital slaves," indicating a need for a symbiotic relationship between capital and the real economy [1] Group 2 - Recent judicial cases, such as the "first case of violating public commitment compensation" in the Shanghai Financial Court, have established the legal validity of public commitments made by shareholders and executives, reinforcing the principle that such commitments must be fulfilled [2] - This judicial ruling aligns with the guidance issued by the Supreme People's Court and the China Securities Regulatory Commission, which emphasizes strict and fair law enforcement to support the high-quality development of the capital market [2]

该案是2019年修订《中华人民共和国证券法》以来，全国首例因上市公司董监高（上市公司董事、监事 和高级管理人员的简称）未履行公开增持承诺引发的证券侵权纠纷案件。据悉，本案采用示范判决机制 进行审理。 登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 董监高违反公开承诺，被判赔偿！ 4月25日，上海金融法院公开宣判原告刘某某、郑某某诉被告上海金某泰化工股份有限公司（以下简 称"金某泰"）、袁某、罗某证券虚假陈述责任纠纷一案。 证券时报记者在现场获悉，上海金融法院一审判令被告袁某、罗某共同赔偿原告刘某某投资损失50.61 万元，共同赔偿原告郑某某投资损失27.74万元。 被告郑某某的代理律师、上海邦信阳律师事务所专职律师刘博接受证券时报记者采访时表示，该案是新 证券法第八十四条的首次司法适用，"此次司法层面的破冰，激活该条款，有利于提振投资者信心以及 推动资本市场有序运行"。 新证券法第八十四条第二款规定，发行人及其控股股东、实际控制人、董事、监事、高级管理人员等作 出公开承诺的，应当披露；不履行承诺给投资者造成损失的，应当依法承担赔偿责任。该条规定首次从 法律层面明确了违反公开承诺的民事赔偿责任。 是否存在主观 ...