星标 ★ IPO日报 精彩文章第一时间推送 据《券商中国》报道，近日，广东证监局对广州海印实业集团有限公司出具了警示函，而深圳证监 局也对阜阳泉赋企业管理有限责任公司出具了警示函。 两个证监局出具警示函的理由大同小异：相关方的忽悠式增持。 AI制图 我们来看一下具体情况。 据报道，海印集团此前曾公告拟增持上市公司海印股份股票5000万元到 8000万元，但实际仅增持了1346.42万元，没有履行完增持承诺。而阜阳泉赋则承诺增持上市公司 珈伟新能6000万元，实际未增持。 值得注意的是， 海印股份2024年6月25日至8月5日连续20个交易日股价低于1元而退市，但监管机 构显然没有因为它退市而放弃对相关责任方追责。 据了解，海印集团在增持计划期间多次因股票停牌、退市等原因顺延期限但最终仍因"资金筹措困 难"未能完成增持，然而"退市不能成为食言理由"。 笔者以为，海印集团此前之所以公告称要增持海印股份的股票，目的很清楚： 就是希望借此提振股 民信心，从而止住股价下跌之势，避免海印股份退市。 海印集团虽然做了一些增持动作，却未能挽救海印股份的退市命运，而那些因为它的增持动作而冲 进去的股民，则成为了牺牲者。 笔者以 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent issuance of warning letters by the Guangdong and Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureaus to Guangzhou Haiyin Industrial Group and Fuyang Quanfu Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. highlights the issue of unfulfilled shareholding commitments, which misleads the market and investors, undermining the integrity of the securities market [1][2] Group 1 - Haiyin Group, as a controlling shareholder, committed to increase its stake in Haiyin shares by no less than 50 million yuan and no more than 80 million yuan, but only increased its stake by 13.4642 million yuan, failing to meet even the lower limit [1] - Fuyang Quanfu planned to increase its stake in Jiawei New Energy by no less than 60 million yuan but did not purchase any shares, citing "insufficient funds" as the reason, which the market finds increasingly unacceptable [1] - The behavior of failing to fulfill commitments damages investor confidence and undermines the foundation of the market, as public commitments by listed companies are crucial for investor decision-making [1] Group 2 - The phenomenon of "deceptive shareholding increases" is not new, where certain shareholders or executives issue increase announcements to create a favorable impression, only to not fulfill their promises later [2] - If investors suffer losses based on these announcements, the actions of the related parties may constitute misleading statements, potentially leading to substantial securities infringement [2] - Regulatory measures outlined in the "Guidelines for the Supervision of Listed Companies No. 4" indicate that violators of commitments may face corrective orders, regulatory talks, warning letters, and public explanations, but mere regulatory warnings may not create sufficient deterrence [2]

Group 1 - The article discusses the issue of companies failing to fulfill their share buyback commitments, highlighting cases involving Guangzhou Haiyin Industrial Group and Fuyang Quanfu Enterprise Management [1][2][4] - Guangzhou Haiyin announced a plan to buy back shares worth between 50 million to 80 million yuan but only executed a buyback of 13.4642 million yuan, falling short of the lower limit of their commitment [2][3] - Fuyang Quanfu promised to buy back 60 million yuan worth of shares in Jiawei New Energy but did not make any purchases by the deadline, citing difficulties in raising funds as the reason for non-compliance [4] Group 2 - The Guangdong Securities Regulatory Bureau issued a warning letter to Guangzhou Haiyin for not meeting its buyback commitment, which constitutes a violation of the regulatory guidelines [3] - The Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau also issued a warning to Fuyang Quanfu for failing to fulfill its buyback promise, indicating a trend of regulatory scrutiny on such commitments [4] - A notable case involved Shanghai Jinlitai Chemical, where executives failed to fulfill a 300 million yuan buyback commitment, leading to a court ruling that required them to compensate investors for losses incurred due to the unfulfilled promise [5][6]