2月26日晚间，长和在港交所公告，继公司于2026年2月4日刊发自愿性公告后，巴拿马政府宪报于2026年2月 23日刊登了巴拿马最高法院就1997年1月16日第5号法律原于2026年1月29日公布所作之裁决，以及一项行政 法令，该行政法令要求巴拿马政府占用公司之附属公司巴拿马港口公司（PPC）之所有动产。 巴拿马政府代表强行进入由PPC于巴尔博亚港及克里斯托瓦尔港所营运之码头，并且强行接管码头之行政及 营运控制权。据公司理解，特许经营权已于2026年2月23日起被视为终止，而PPC已于同日终止在两个港口 之码头的一切运作。 PPC已获得意见，指该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿马政府就PPC于该两个港口之码头营运所采取的相应行动， 与相关法律框架，以及批准该特许经营合约之法律并不一致。 董事会对该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿马之相应行动表示强烈反对，集团继续联同其法律顾问，保留集团一切 权利，并拟采取一切妥善可行之法律方案以保卫集团权益，包括就该事宜诉诸进一步国内及国际法律程序。 公司股东及潜在投资者于买卖公司股份及/或其他证券时务须审慎行事。 此前一天，2月25日晚，李嘉诚家族旗下 长和 系3家公司：长江基建（ 01038 ...

PPC已获得意见，指该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿马政府就PPC于该两个港口的码头营运所采取的相应行 动，与相关法律框架，以及批准该特许经营合约的法律并不一致。董事会对该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿 马的相应行动表示强烈反对，本集团继续联同其法律顾问，保留集团一切权利，并拟采取一切妥善可行 的法律方案以保卫本集团权益，包括就该事宜诉诸进一步国内及国际法律程序。 智通财经APP讯，长和(00001)发布公告，继本公司于2026年2月4日刊发自愿性公告后，巴拿马政府宪报 于2026年2月23日刊登了巴拿马最高法院就1997年1月16日第5号法律原于2026年1月29日公布所作的裁决 (该裁决)，以及一项行政法令(该行政法令)，该行政法令要求巴拿马政府占用本公司的附属公司巴拿马 港口公司(PPC)的所有动产。 巴拿马政府代表强行进入由PPC于巴尔博亚港及克里斯托瓦尔港所营运的码头，并且强行接管码头的行 政及营运控制权。据本公司理解，特许经营权已于2026年2月23日起被视为终止，而PPC已于同日终止 在两个港口的码头的一切运作。 ...

长和(00001)发布公告，继本公司于2026年2月4日刊发自愿性公告后，巴拿马政府宪报于2026年2月23日 刊登了巴拿马最高法院就1997年1月16日第5号法律原于2026年1月29日公布所作的裁决(该裁决)，以及 一项行政法令(该行政法令)，该行政法令要求巴拿马政府占用本公司的附属公司巴拿马港口公司(PPC) 的所有动产。 巴拿马政府代表强行进入由PPC于巴尔博亚港及克里斯托瓦尔港所营运的码头，并且强行接管码头的行 政及营运控制权。据本公司理解，特许经营权已于2026年2月23日起被视为终止，而PPC已于同日终止 在两个港口的码头的一切运作。 PPC已获得意见，指该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿马政府就PPC于该两个港口的码头营运所采取的相应行 动，与相关法律框架，以及批准该特许经营合约的法律并不一致。董事会对该裁决、该行政法令及巴拿 马的相应行动表示强烈反对，本集团继续联同其法律顾问，保留集团一切权利，并拟采取一切妥善可行 的法律方案以保卫本集团权益，包括就该事宜诉诸进一步国内及国际法律程序。 ...

Group 1 - The company announced that it has notified the Republic of Panama regarding a dispute under the investment protection treaty to safeguard its interests and invited the government for consultations [1] - The company claims that the Panamanian government is taking actions to force its subsidiary, Panama Ports Company, to exit operations and is implementing transitional measures without clear operational plans [1] - The company will continue to consult legal advisors and explore all possible avenues, including legal actions against the Republic of Panama and third parties involved [1] Group 2 - The company stated that the Panamanian government has not provided any guarantees or clear explanations regarding the operations of Panama Ports Company at Balboa and Cristobal ports, leading to further disruptions and damages [2] - The immediate consequence of a potential termination of the Panama Ports Company's concession rights would be its inability to operate the container terminals at Balboa and Cristobal ports [2] - The continuation of operations at these two ports is entirely dependent on the actions of the Panamanian Supreme Court and government, which are beyond the company's control [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in seeking justice and the importance of empathy and understanding from legal professionals in resolving their grievances [1][2][4]. Group 1: Case Background - A rural mother and daughter approached the prosecutor's office feeling that the administrative punishment for a man who illegally entered their home was too lenient [1]. - The man was only given a five-day administrative detention and a fine of 300 yuan, which the mother and daughter believed did not reflect the severity of his actions, as they felt it constituted attempted rape [1]. Group 2: Legal Process and Response - The prosecutor, Gao Zenghui, carefully reviewed the case documents and explained the legal standards for classifying the man's actions, indicating that the evidence did not meet the requirements for attempted rape [2]. - Gao emphasized that the current punishment was appropriate and beneficial for the victims, as it held the perpetrator accountable while protecting their reputation and future [2][3]. Group 3: Emotional Resolution - The mother expressed her frustration about the difficulty of seeking justice, while the prosecutor provided reassurance that their efforts were valid and recognized [3]. - Ultimately, the mother and daughter found relief in understanding that their pursuit of justice was acknowledged, leading to a resolution of their emotional distress [3][4]. Group 4: Insights on Legal Support - The prosecutor reflected on the significance of recognizing and empathizing with the citizens' struggles, stating that often, they seek simple acknowledgment rather than complex legal arguments [4].

支持持续维权，用法律手段从专业人士那边追回资金。我刚才 check 了一下，打了 5 万 u 只退 8ku，16%-17%。而且如果退款的话，还会削减原本应有的代币份额，到这一步还在玩文字游戏这次哪怕只有 5 万，也是要继续追的。很久没被这种文字游戏欺骗了，没想到逃过了 zkasino 和 trove 没逃过这个 https://t.co/6q43DLAlkY冰蛙 (@Ice_Frog666666):一支穿云箭，千军万马来相见。接下来将与正链 @Hashlex_CN 展开深度的法律维权合作，准备打响Space @intodotspace 法律维权第一枪。关于正链：成员全部来自红圈所，过去有大量的高标定跨境诉讼的成功案例，懂的人查下就知道牛逼之处了。 https://t.co/Brv8AbUnPf ...

第一个有律所介入的维权项目干死那些诈骗犯吧冰蛙 (@Ice_Frog666666):一支穿云箭，千军万马来相见。接下来将与正链 @Hashlex_CN 展开深度的法律维权合作，准备打响Space @intodotspace 法律维权第一枪。关于正链：成员全部来自红圈所，过去有大量的高标定跨境诉讼的成功案例，懂的人查下就知道牛逼之处了。 https://t.co/Brv8AbUnPf ...

Core Viewpoint - A significant development has emerged in the Anshi Semiconductor incident, with Wentai Technology actively engaging in dialogue with the "Anshi Semiconductor custodian" (current head of Anshi Netherlands) [1] Group 1: Communication Progress - Wentai Technology has stated that due to confidentiality obligations, it cannot disclose detailed progress on the discussions as of the December 26 shareholders' meeting [1] - The company has highlighted several controversial actions by Anshi Netherlands, including the interruption of wafer supply to Anshi China and unfounded allegations regarding the quality of Anshi China's products [1] Group 2: Legal Actions - In addition to negotiations, Wentai Technology is pursuing legal avenues to protect its rights, having initiated multiple legal proceedings in the Netherlands [1] - The company claims that the Dutch government's intervention violates the China-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement and has submitted a dispute notice on October 15, with potential claims reaching up to $8 billion if unresolved within six months [1] Group 3: Future Actions - Wentai Technology plans to leverage a second hearing in January 2026 to reaffirm its position and actively defend its rights [1] - The company insists that any genuine resolution must restore its complete rights as a shareholder and its legitimate control over Anshi [1]

Core Viewpoint - Recent events related to loan guarantee services have drawn significant attention, particularly concerning Zhongrong Guoyuan Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and its involvement in a compliance consulting service agreement that did not progress to substantive operations [1][2] Group 1: Company Actions - Zhongrong Guoyuan signed a tripartite business cooperation agreement with Hangzhou Shuojiu Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Kangping Chengxin Microfinance Co., Ltd. on June 23, 2025 [1] - The agreement stipulated that Zhongrong Guoyuan must inform borrowers about the guarantee consulting services, including fees and legal consequences, and prohibited the company from charging any fees beyond the consulting service fee [1] - After discovering unauthorized operations in August 2025, Zhongrong Guoyuan issued a notice to terminate the cooperation agreement and demanded an immediate halt to related business activities [1] Group 2: Unauthorized Activities - Hangzhou Shuojiu Network applied for an online merchant account in Zhongrong Guoyuan's name without the company's knowledge and collected consulting service fees that were redirected to its own account [2] - Zhongrong Guoyuan was unable to retrieve any data related to the business due to the unauthorized control of the merchant account by Hangzhou Shuojiu Network [2] - The actions of Hangzhou Shuojiu Network included forgery of seals and unauthorized agreements, which severely damaged Zhongrong Guoyuan's market reputation and consumer rights [2] Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Response - Zhongrong Guoyuan is actively coordinating with financial regulatory authorities to address customer complaints and protect client rights [2] - The company has reported the matter to law enforcement and intends to pursue legal action against Hangzhou Shuojiu Network to safeguard its legitimate interests [2]

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving actress Wen Zhengrong highlights the urgent need for legal and regulatory intervention regarding the unauthorized use of AI-generated images for commercial purposes, raising questions about platform accountability [2][4][6] Group 1: Celebrity Rights Protection - Celebrities must follow a structured approach to protect their rights, starting with evidence collection, such as saving screenshots of AI broadcasts and links to infringing products [2][3] - Legal actions can be taken against merchants for infringing on portrait rights and name rights, with the Civil Code providing a solid legal basis for such claims [3][4] Group 2: Platform Responsibilities - Platforms cannot evade responsibility and must implement preemptive measures, such as using technology to identify AI-generated content and verifying identities in live broadcasts [4][6] - Upon receiving reports of infringement, platforms are required to act within 24 hours to remove infringing content, as stipulated by the E-commerce Law [4][6] Group 3: Legal Framework and Enforcement - The Civil Code and E-commerce Law provide a clear legal framework for rights holders to notify platforms and enforce their rights against unauthorized use of AI [4][5] - Regulatory bodies need to increase penalties for violations, as demonstrated by past cases where companies were fined for impersonating public figures [5][6] Group 4: Challenges and Solutions - The covert nature of AI fraud complicates enforcement, but proactive monitoring and technological upgrades are essential for platforms to prevent misuse [5][6] - Collective action among celebrities, platforms, and regulatory authorities is necessary to effectively combat the misuse of AI technology [6]