Core Viewpoint - The case illustrates the risks associated with investing in private equity funds, emphasizing the importance of thorough due diligence by fund managers to ensure investment safety and profitability [1][2][5]. Group 1: Investment Opportunity and Issues - The protagonist, referred to as "Lao Diao," invested in a private equity fund launched by Company E, which promised high returns from a southern expansion project [1]. - Upon maturity, Company E failed to repay the principal and returns, leading Lao Diao to discover significant issues in Company E's due diligence process [1]. - Company E only conducted superficial investigations into the investment targets, neglecting to verify the fulfillment of cooperation agreements between the target company and its downstream partners [1]. Group 2: Legal Recourse and Responsibilities - Lao Diao sought legal advice from Lawyer Yang, who explained that Company E had not fulfilled its duty of care in managing the fund, which is a legal obligation to conduct comprehensive and in-depth investigations [2][5]. - The court determined that Company E had significant lapses in due diligence and ruled that they were liable for 40% of Lao Diao's losses, which included partial principal and interest losses [5]. - Lawyer Yang outlined a "six-step review method" used by courts to assess whether fund managers met their due diligence obligations, which includes evaluating the investigation methods, depth, and whether the results were timely presented to investors [5]. Group 3: Lessons Learned - The case serves as a cautionary tale for investors in private equity funds, highlighting the necessity of selecting reliable fund managers and the potential for legal recourse in case of mismanagement [6]. - It emphasizes the importance of seeking professional legal assistance when facing investment issues, as demonstrated by Lao Diao's eventual recovery of some losses through legal action [6].

Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Financial Court ruled that the fund manager was liable for 40% of the investor's losses due to negligence in due diligence, despite the investment product being in an unliquidated state, establishing a precedent for investor rights protection in asset management disputes [1][3][8]. Group 1: Case Details - In March 2017, a certain contractual fund was registered with the China Securities Investment Fund Industry Association, and in April, the investor transferred 1 million yuan to the fund's special account [2]. - The fund manager failed to ensure timely repayment to the investor due to a default by the investment target company, leading to the investor suing for compensation [2][3]. - The court found that the fund manager did not conduct thorough due diligence, failing to verify the performance of cooperation agreements, which constituted a breach of their duty of care [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The court's decision to hold the fund manager liable for 40% of the losses included both the principal investment and interest losses due to fund occupation [3]. - The ruling introduced a "six-step review method" for judicial recognition of the fund manager's due diligence obligations, providing clear guidelines for future cases [3][8]. - The judgment clarified that the investor retains rights in the subsequent liquidation process, with the fund manager's compensation being a precursor to the investor's claims [7][8]. Group 3: Industry Impact - The case highlights the ongoing issues in asset management disputes, particularly regarding the responsibilities of fund managers and the challenges in calculating losses when products are not liquidated [4][5]. - The ruling may influence asset management institutions' handling of underlying assets, as managers may lack motivation to liquidate problematic projects to avoid loss calculations [5][6]. - The decision supports the notion that investors can seek compensation from asset management companies even before the completion of product liquidation, sparking discussions within the industry [8].

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of asset management regulations aims to break the implicit guarantee and promote a responsible investment environment, but issues with asset management products can lead to legal disputes regarding investor protection [1][8]. Group 1: Case Overview - A specific case was highlighted by the Beijing Financial Court, where a fund management company failed to conduct adequate due diligence, leading to an inability to repay an investor [1][5]. - The fund product was registered in March 2017, and the investor transferred 1 million yuan to a dedicated account as per the contract [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court found that the fund management company only investigated the investment situation and did not verify the performance of cooperation agreements with the investment target and downstream partners, indicating a lack of due diligence [5][7]. - The court ruled that the fund management company was 40% liable for the investor's losses, which included the principal and interest on the funds occupied [7]. Group 3: Due Diligence Standards - The core disputes in asset management-related cases revolve around whether the management fulfilled their fiduciary duties, particularly the due diligence obligation [8][10]. - The Beijing Financial Court established a "six-step review method" to assess whether fund managers have fulfilled their due diligence obligations, providing a reference standard for similar cases [11][15].