中经记者 封莉 北京报道 2月24日，最高人民法院民二庭副庭长王朝辉在最高法新闻发布会上介绍，2025年，全国法院审结涉证 券、期货、基金等资本市场案件2.5万件，同比增长53.6%。案件多以上市公司、控股股东或实际控制 人、证券公司、会计师事务所等中介服务机构为被告。 近年来，新型证券纠纷不断出现，但股票类虚假陈述案件仍占绝大多数。人民法院在资本市场的法治化 建设中发挥了哪些关键作用？对此，王朝辉表示，资本市场高质量发展是建设金融强国的重要内容，在 此人民法院承担着重要责任，主要开展了四项工作。 一是积极推进证券纠纷特别代表人诉讼。这是由投资者保护机构受50名以上投资者特别授权提起的民事 赔偿诉讼，遵循"默示加入、明示退出"规则，裁判结果对所有未声明退出的受损投资者都发生效力。 例如，南京中院审理的全国第三起证券虚假陈述特别代表人诉讼，先行判决金通灵公司赔偿4.3万名投 资者7.7亿余元投资损失。另外，深圳中院受理的ST美尚、沈阳中院受理的锦州港特别代表人诉讼案件 的审理正在稳步推进。 二是支持开展普通代表人诉讼。这是由符合条件的投资者依法推选代表人，代表已登记的受损投资者提 起的民事赔偿诉讼。这类诉讼遵循 ...

最高人民法院民二庭庭长王闯2月24日在最高法新闻发布会上表示，下一步将加快出台新公司法配套司 法解释，加强各类市场主体纠纷案件司法研究和审判指导；制定证券市场内幕交易、操纵市场等民事赔 偿司法解释，深入研究私募基金、虚拟货币等新型金融案件司法应对举措，完善金融司法保障体系等。 案件整体呈现三个特点：一是金融创新带来新类型纠纷层出不穷，法律适用更加复杂疑难。二是案件涉 众型、关联性态势更为突出，统一裁判尺度的任务更加紧迫。三是案件裁判对金融风险防范化解作用愈 加明显。 2025年，全国法院对标大力发展科技金融、绿色金融、普惠金融、养老金融、数字金融"五篇大文章"工 作要求，积极以司法审判职能助力金融强国建设，形成一批扎实有效的工作成果。 在助力科技金融方面，上海、北京、成渝三家金融法院和深圳金融法庭充分发挥集中管辖、专业审判优 势，依法审理科创板上市公司、创业板上市公司等涉诉案件，助力科技型成长型企业获得更多的金融支 持。上海高院金融庭向市银行同业公会、市保险同业公会等4家金融行业协会制发《关于综合施策推动 科技金融高质量发展的司法建议》，有力助推上海国际金融中心与上海国际科技创新中心联动发展。 最高人民法院民 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent ruling by the Nanjing Intermediate Court regarding the special representative lawsuit against Jintongling Securities, which resulted in over 43,000 investors receiving compensation exceeding 770 million yuan, highlighting the increasing application of special representative lawsuits in China's capital market [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Developments - The Nanjing Intermediate Court's ruling is a preliminary judgment that establishes the liability of the listed company, with further judgments on the responsibilities of the company's executives and related intermediaries to follow [2]. - The special representative lawsuit system is recognized as a significant method for holding financial fraud accountable, enhancing the cost of violations in the capital market, and protecting the rights of small and medium investors [3][4]. Group 2: Regulatory Context - The recent ruling aligns with the new "National Nine Articles," which aims to strengthen the regulatory framework against financial fraud and improve the accountability mechanisms in the capital market [4][5]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has adopted a "zero tolerance" approach towards financial fraud, increasing enforcement efforts and enhancing civil liability support mechanisms, including the application of special representative lawsuits [4][5]. Group 3: Case Examples - The Jintongling case involved six years of financial fraud, with the company inflating revenue by over 1.3 billion yuan and profits by 500 million yuan, currently undergoing bankruptcy restructuring [5]. - Other notable cases include Kangmei Pharmaceutical and Meishang Ecological, which are also significant financial fraud cases under special representative lawsuits [5]. Group 4: Investor Protection Initiatives - The China Securities Investor Services Center plays an active role in representing investors in lawsuits, focusing on establishing suitable plaintiffs, preparing legal arguments, and ensuring effective communication with represented investors [6][7]. - The Supreme Court and CSRC have emphasized the importance of supporting investor protection institutions in ordinary representative lawsuits, enhancing the collaborative effect of both special and ordinary representative lawsuits in safeguarding investor rights [7]. Group 5: Future Directions - There is a call for timely modifications to the judicial interpretations of representative lawsuits to refine the conditions for initiating special representative lawsuits and improve the operational mechanisms [10]. - The China Securities Investor Services Center plans to update its business rules to enhance the selection criteria and mechanisms for representative lawsuits, ensuring a solid foundation for the regular advancement of these lawsuits [10].

Group 1 - The Hebei Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court has announced a representative lawsuit registration notice regarding ST Xudong, indicating that 11 investors have initiated legal action for securities misrepresentation [1] - The court's announcement specifies the rights holders' scope, registration period, and methods for investors who purchased ST Xudong shares between February 15, 2016, and July 5, 2024 [1] - Investors who meet the criteria can register their claims by January 8, 2026, through the designated online platform [1] Group 2 - The China Securities Investor Service Center will continue to support the lawsuit and actively promote the representative lawsuit process, providing updates through various channels [2]

Core Viewpoint - The case involves CITIC Securities South China Company as one of the defendants in a lawsuit related to false statements made by Dongxu Optoelectronics during its 2017 private stock issuance, with claims for compensation from investors totaling approximately RMB 1.83 million [3][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The lawsuit stems from Dongxu Optoelectronics' alleged violations of information disclosure laws from 2015 to 2022, including fraudulent issuance of stocks and failure to disclose its 2023 annual report on time [3][4]. - CITIC Securities South China was the lead underwriter for Dongxu Optoelectronics' 2017 private stock issuance before being acquired by CITIC Securities [5]. - The Hebei High Court has ruled that the case will proceed under a representative litigation procedure, allowing a group of investors to collectively pursue claims [4][5]. Group 2: Legal and Financial Implications - The total claim amount from the 11 investors is RMB 1,828,167.34, which is approximately RMB 1.83 million [3][4]. - CITIC Securities has indicated that potential losses related to this case were considered during the acquisition of Guangzhou Securities, suggesting that the financial impact on the company will be minimal [5]. - The representative litigation mechanism is designed to enhance investor protection and streamline the legal process for collective claims, reflecting a shift towards more efficient legal recourse for investors [4][5]. Group 3: Industry Context - The case highlights the increasing scrutiny on intermediary institutions, such as securities firms, in fulfilling their responsibilities as gatekeepers in the capital markets [5]. - Recent trends show a growing number of lawsuits involving multiple defendants, including controlling shareholders and various intermediary institutions, indicating a broader accountability framework in the capital market [6]. - The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future disputes involving similar issues of liability and investor compensation, impacting the operational standards of intermediary firms [7].

Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit involving CITIC Securities South China Co., Ltd. and Dongxu Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. has progressed, with the Hebei High Court ruling that the case will proceed under a representative litigation procedure, allowing collective claims from affected investors [1][2]. Group 1: Case Background - The lawsuit stems from alleged false statements made by Dongxu Optoelectronics in its financial disclosures from 2015 to 2022, including fraudulent issuance of stocks in 2017 [1][2]. - CITIC Securities South China Co., Ltd. is one of 37 defendants, accused of failing to fulfill its duties as the lead underwriter for Dongxu Optoelectronics' 2017 stock issuance [2]. - The total claim amount from the 11 plaintiffs is approximately RMB 1,828,167.34, equivalent to about 1.83 million RMB [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The case has seen several key procedural milestones, including the acceptance of the case by the Hebei High Court and the determination of the rights holders eligible for claims [2]. - The representative litigation procedure is designed to enhance investor protection by allowing affected investors to be included in the lawsuit without needing to explicitly opt-in [2]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - The case highlights the increasing scrutiny on intermediary institutions, such as securities firms, in their roles as underwriters and their responsibilities towards investors [3]. - The trend of holding multiple parties accountable, including controlling shareholders and various intermediary institutions, is becoming more common in securities disputes [5]. - The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future disputes, particularly regarding the responsibilities of intermediaries and the effectiveness of investor protection mechanisms [6].