Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the first case of false statements in securities related to the New Third Board market, highlighting the collaborative mechanism between financial judiciary and regulatory bodies to mitigate financial risks [1][9]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a technology company that went public on the New Third Board in December 2013, with its main broker and auditing firm providing reports that later proved to be misleading [4]. - The company faced significant issues with its internal controls, leading to a substantial drop in stock price and subsequent investigation by the regulatory authority [4][6]. - An investor, due to losses incurred from the company's shares, sought compensation of approximately 1.85 million yuan [3][4]. Group 2: Judicial Findings - The Shanghai Financial Court determined that the investor relied on market prices for investment decisions, applying the "presumed reliance principle" to establish causation in trading [6][9]. - The court differentiated responsibilities of the main broker during the stock recommendation phase and the ongoing supervision phase, concluding that the broker was liable only for the initial phase [6][9]. - The auditing firm was found to have significant deficiencies in its audit procedures, leading to a determination that it should bear 20% of the losses caused by the false statements [7][9]. Group 3: Compensation Outcomes - The court ruled that the technology company must compensate the investor for the full loss of 1.85 million yuan, while the main broker was ordered to pay 20,200 yuan and the auditing firm 242,500 yuan [7][9]. - The final judgment was upheld by the Shanghai High People's Court, reinforcing the accountability of intermediaries in securities transactions [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a landmark case regarding the liability of intermediary institutions in securities false statements within the New Third Board market, emphasizing the application of the "presumed reliance principle" in establishing causation for investor losses [2][7]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - In December 2013, a technology company's stock was publicly listed on the New Third Board, with a securities company acting as the lead underwriter and an accounting firm providing audit reports [3]. - In June 2017, a new audit report revealed significant internal control deficiencies in the technology company, leading to a sharp decline in its stock price [3][4]. Court Ruling - The Shanghai Financial Court ruled that investors relied on market prices for their investment decisions, allowing for the application of the "presumed reliance principle" [5]. - The lead underwriter was found liable for failing to conduct adequate due diligence during the listing phase, while it was not held liable during the ongoing supervision phase due to the lack of regulatory requirements for substantive review of financial data [5]. - The accounting firm was deemed to have significant deficiencies in its audit procedures, leading to a 20% liability for the losses incurred by investors [6]. Significance of the Ruling - This case is the first of its kind in the New Third Board market, clarifying the responsibilities of intermediary institutions in different phases of the listing process [7]. - It establishes that the nature of due diligence obligations must be differentiated and that the liability of intermediary institutions should be assessed based on compliance with regulatory standards and industry practices [7].