推动大股东利用其持股优势、资金优势和信息优势，采取一切手段维持股价，涉嫌共同操纵市场，即便 强制披露亦无法消除其操纵本质。因此，应从监管和司法层面加快制度建设，弥补市场漏洞，从根本上 禁止这一行为。 中国法学会商法学研究会会长、中国政法大学民商经济法学院赵旭东教授认为，对赌协议的效力应当从 经济合理性、交易公平性和现实必要性等角度进行考量。《九民纪要》未能真正统一裁判标准，问题源 于法律定性偏差，应将对赌协议视为股债融合的第三类投资形式，并建议公司法针对对赌协议设置差异 化规则和例外条款。 本报（chinatimes.net.cn）记者陈岩鹏 北京报道 "上市公司大股东之间，能够进行市值或股价对赌吗？"针对近期我国资本市场出现的一些新型的、与股 价挂钩的投资对赌协议，中国法学会证券法学研究会日前举行专题研讨认为，上市公司大股东之间以市 值或股价进行的对赌安排，不仅面临合同履行的不确定性，还会构成规避监管的手段，极易引发市场操 纵、内幕交易等多重风险，成为诱发金融风险的导火索，应明确否定其效力。监管部门应加快制度建 设，弥补制度漏洞；司法部门应统一裁判规则，发挥资本市场法治的兜底保障功能。 来自国内多所知名高校 ...

在该申请中，香港证监会正寻求制止该16名被告人处置他们在香港的资产，并以394,067,589港元为限， 该金额相当于受影响的投资者因涉嫌市场失当行为而蒙受的估计损失。 法庭按照香港证监会要求，至今已针对该16名被告人中的四人颁发临时强制令。此项针对该四人的临时 强制令将维持有效，直至法庭作出进一步命令为止。至于另外12名被告人，法庭已作出进一步指示，并 将该申请押后至另一尚待指定的日期。 香港证监会已向原讼法庭申请临时资产冻结令。有关资产拟用作赔偿一宗涉嫌涉及广骏集团控股有限公 司(广骏)股份的组织严密的社交媒体"唱高散货"案件中受影响的投资者(该申请)。据悉，广骏于2018年 10月15日在香港联合交易所有限公司GEM上市。 香港证监会已根据《证券及期货条例》第213条对16名被告人(包括怀疑主脑)展开法律程序，原因是他 们在2021年6月至2022年6月期间涉嫌操纵广骏股份，而该申请属于上述法律程序的一部分。 ...

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around a market manipulation case in Hong Kong, where a listed company's former chairman and executive director are accused of using false documents and nominee accounts to manipulate stock prices, creating fictitious agreements worth 20 million HKD with mainland companies [1][2] - The market manipulation scheme involved disseminating positive news to inflate stock prices, allowing perpetrators to sell at high prices while leaving ordinary investors to bear the losses [1][2] - The case highlights a stark contrast between traditional robbery, exemplified by the gold heist, and the more insidious nature of financial crimes in the capital market, where perpetrators operate from offices rather than through violence [1][2][3] Group 2 - The societal impact of market manipulation is significant, as it erodes market trust and can harm a larger number of ordinary investors compared to traditional theft, which primarily affects those directly involved [2] - Ordinary investors in the manipulated company experienced substantial losses as they watched stock prices plummet amidst speculative trading, contrasting with the rational behavior of Hong Kong citizens selling gold for profit during high prices [3]

Core Insights - The collapse of Amaranth hedge fund was primarily due to a massive bet on natural gas futures by star trader Brian Hunter, resulting in a loss of approximately $6 billion in a week, which was 65% of the fund's assets [1][5][6] Group 1: Fund Background and Strategy - Amaranth hedge fund was established in 2000 by Nickolas Maounis, initially focusing on bond arbitrage with stable performance [2] - From 2004 onwards, the fund shifted its strategy to invest heavily in the energy market, with total assets reaching $9.5 billion by August 2006, half of which was allocated to energy [2] - Brian Hunter was promoted to co-head of the energy department in 2005, showcasing exceptional trading skills that generated over $1 billion in profits for the fund that year [3] Group 2: Fatal Betting Strategy - In August 2006, Amaranth held natural gas contracts predicting a widening price spread between winter and summer contracts, with a spread of $2.6 per million BTU [4] - By September 20, the price of the contracts fell significantly, leading to substantial losses for the fund as the anticipated price spread narrowed to $0.6 [4] Group 3: Rapid Decline and Impact - On September 14, 2006, Amaranth reported a loss of $560 million, which accelerated into a series of extreme losses, culminating in a single-day loss of nearly $2 billion on September 15 [5] - By September 20, the fund was forced to sell its energy positions at a significant discount, resulting in investors losing two-thirds of their investments [6][7] Group 4: Regulatory and Risk Management Issues - Following the collapse, regulatory bodies filed lawsuits against Hunter and Amaranth for market manipulation, with fines totaling $259 million for the fund and $30 million for Hunter [9] - The failure of Amaranth highlighted critical risk management deficiencies, emphasizing the need for better oversight and risk assessment practices within hedge funds [10]

Core Viewpoint - Nasdaq is tightening its listing rules for Chinese companies, requiring a minimum fundraising amount of $25 million for IPOs, in response to criticisms regarding fraud and market manipulation associated with smaller Chinese firms [1][2]. Group 1: New Listing Regulations - Nasdaq will raise the minimum fundraising threshold for IPOs of companies primarily operating in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau to $25 million [1]. - The proposed changes also include increasing the minimum market capitalization requirement for future listings to $15 million and expediting delisting procedures for companies that no longer meet listing standards [1]. - All changes are subject to approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [1]. Group 2: Background and Rationale - Since 2020, numerous Chinese companies have gone public on Nasdaq, often raising amounts of $15 million or less, leading to significant price volatility [1]. - Nasdaq identified a new emerging pattern related to potential stock manipulation, where promoters linked to major shareholders sell stocks to new investors, artificially inflating prices before insiders sell off their shares [1]. - Since August 2022, nearly 70% of the cases reported by Nasdaq to the SEC or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) involved trading of Chinese companies, despite these companies representing less than 10% of Nasdaq's total listings [1][2]. Group 3: Market Sentiment - The tightening of Nasdaq's listing standards reflects a broader regulatory commitment to protect investors and maintain market order, especially in light of concerns raised by Wall Street veterans and investor advocates [2]. - There is a growing sentiment among brokerages and trading firms that Nasdaq's previous listing standards were too lenient, allowing questionable companies, particularly from overseas jurisdictions, to list [2].

Core Viewpoint - The proposed changes to Nasdaq's IPO listing standards will significantly raise the entry barriers for companies, particularly affecting Chinese firms seeking to go public in the U.S. market [3][4][13]. Summary by Relevant Sections Proposed Changes - Nasdaq has proposed three main changes to its IPO listing standards: 1. Minimum public holding market value for companies choosing to list based on net profit will increase to $15 million from the current $5 million [3]. 2. Companies with listing deficiencies and a market value below $5 million will face accelerated delisting processes [3]. 3. A minimum fundraising requirement of $25 million will be set for new companies primarily operating in China [3][4]. Impact on Chinese Companies - The new rules will raise the listing threshold for many small and medium-sized Chinese enterprises, making it more challenging for them to meet the new standards [4]. - The increased delisting risk due to accelerated processes will affect existing Chinese companies with low market values or other listing deficiencies [4]. Market Reactions - Some companies may consider shifting their IPO plans to other markets, particularly the Hong Kong market, which has seen a surge in IPO activity and recently revised its own IPO rules [4][5]. - Nasdaq's adjustments are seen as a response to potential market manipulation and a move to enhance investor protection and market integrity [5][6]. Regulatory Context - The proposed changes are part of Nasdaq's ongoing efforts to improve market quality and competitiveness amid a challenging global capital market environment [7]. - If approved by the SEC, the new requirements will be implemented immediately, with a 30-day grace period for companies already in the IPO process [7].

Group 1 - Trump's public statements on the stock market are not new, as he previously suggested it was a good time to buy before announcing a tariff pause, leading to a 9.5% increase in the S&P 500 [4][5] - On August 4, after the market closed, Trump posted on "Truth Social" that the stock market performed well, with the Dow Jones up 585.06 points (1.34%), S&P 500 up 91.93 points (1.47%), and Nasdaq up 403.45 points (1.95%) [3] - Trump's actions have raised concerns about market manipulation, with experts warning that he may be signaling he can manipulate the market without consequences [4][6] Group 2 - The "buy now" message from Trump on April 9 was followed by a significant market rally, recovering approximately $4 trillion in market value, which was 70% of the losses from the previous four trading days [5] - Trump's use of the signature "DJT" in his posts has drawn attention, as it is both his initials and the stock ticker for Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of "Truth Social" [6] - Despite Trump Media's significant losses of $400 million last year, the stock surged by 22.67% on the day of Trump's post, indicating a strong market reaction to his statements [6]

Group 1 - Trump's recent social media post indicated a strong performance in the stock market, with the Dow Jones up 585.06 points (1.34%), S&P 500 up 91.93 points (1.47%), and Nasdaq up 403.45 points (1.95%) [1] - In April, prior to announcing a 90-day suspension of tariffs, Trump suggested on social media that it was a good time to buy, leading to a 9.5% increase in the S&P 500, recovering approximately $4 trillion in market value, which represented 70% of the losses from the previous four trading days [2][3] - Trump's use of the signature "DJT" in his posts has drawn attention, as it is both his initials and the stock ticker for Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of the social media platform he uses [4] Group 2 - Experts have raised concerns about potential market manipulation due to Trump's social media activity, suggesting that his posts could imply he can manipulate the market without consequences [2][4] - The increase in Trump Media's stock price by 22.67% on the day of the April post, despite the company reporting a $400 million loss the previous year, indicates a significant market reaction to his statements [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) have launched a joint operation named "Leverage" to combat market manipulation and corruption involving a listed company and its former executives [1] Group 1: Joint Operation Details - The operation was initiated on July 23, 2025, targeting a sophisticated criminal group suspected of manipulating the shares of a listed company through corrupt practices [1] - Arrested individuals are accused of conspiring to use documents containing false information, including internal documents and announcements from the listed company [1] Group 2: Financial Implications - The suspects allegedly claimed that the listed company had reached a share subscription agreement with a mainland enterprise and was developing a joint project, involving funds exceeding 20 million Hong Kong dollars [1] - The involved listed company has had its trading suspended since March 2025 and has been ordered to be liquidated by the court [1]

Group 1 - The stock price of *ST Guangdao surged by 251% from June 25 to July 16, reaching a market value of 630 million yuan, despite being a "quasi-delisting stock" facing severe legal issues [2][3] - The company is under investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for systematic fraud, including falsifying contracts and financial documents, which has led to multiple reports containing false information from 2018 to 2024 [3] - Regulatory authorities have imposed trading restrictions on accounts involved in market manipulation, reaffirming a zero-tolerance stance against such activities [2][3] Group 2 - The recent trading activities surrounding *ST Guangdao reflect a broader issue of market speculation and disregard for regulatory boundaries, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement of delisting rules [3] - The company's last trading day before suspension saw another 30% increase in stock price, illustrating the absurdity of the market's behavior amidst ongoing fraud allegations [3] - Investors are advised to remain cautious and avoid engaging with companies involved in financial deception, as the risks associated with such investments can lead to significant losses [4]