分析人士指出，大额违约金主张一方面体现出公司维护自身权益的态度，但诉讼周期、举证难度及执行效果等因素，都可能对最终回款节奏及财务报表反映 形成差异。 华特气体在公告中重申，公司目前生产经营活动正常开展，本次诉讼不会对公司日常运营产生实质性影响。公司将持续强化合同管理和合规风控，并提示广 大投资者理性判断诉讼事项的不确定性风险，注意二级市场交易风险。 （校对/秋贤） 公告显示，华特气体请求法院判令赖明贵等被告支付违约金人民币1.8亿元，并承担案件受理费、保全费等全部诉讼费用。公司强调，本次纠纷源于股权转 让相关协议履行过程中的争议，目前尚处于诉前财产保全和正式立案阶段，案件尚未开庭审理，最终判决结果及执行情况仍存在不确定性。 华特气体表示，公司将积极通过法律途径维护自身合法权益，并根据案件进展情况严格依照监管要求履行持续信息披露义务。公司提醒投资者，目前难以对 案件可能产生的责任承担和经济后果作出准确判断，相关事项对公司本期利润及期后利润的影响尚无法预计。 （文/罗叶馨梅）11月24日，华特气体（688268.SH）发布公告称，公司就与赖明贵、四川中氟能新材料科技有限公司、罗君之间的股权转让纠纷，已向广东 省佛 ...

此前，华特气体已因赖明贵的部分违约行为向法院起诉。本次系华特气体针对赖明贵的其他违约行为另 案起诉，诉讼请求主要包括三项：一是判令赖明贵支付违约金1.8亿元；二是判令中氟能公司、罗君对 赖明贵的债务承担连带清偿责任；三是判令三被告承担案件受理费、保全费等全部诉讼费用。 华特气体(688268)11月24日晚间披露公司就股权转让纠纷一案向法院提起重大诉讼，涉案金额达1.8亿 元，目前案件已被法院立案受理，但尚未开庭审理。 据公告显示，本次诉讼的原告为华特气体，被告分别为赖明贵、四川中氟能新材料科技有限公司（下 称"中氟能公司"）、罗君。案件的起因源于2022年签署的一系列合作协议。2022年4月6日，华特气体与 赖明贵签订《西南地区电子气体合作协议》，协议约定华特气体对案涉协议项下的标的气体权益享有排 他权，同时明确了违约赔偿条款：若赖明贵拒绝转让华特气体拟收购的股权，或通过转让等方式让第三 方享有相关权益，需支付违约金，其中特定情形下违约金金额为1.8亿元。 2022年5月27日，标的公司中氟能公司成立。同年10月14日，华特气体、赖明贵、罗君及中氟能公司签 订《西南地区电子气体合作协议之补充协议（一）》，协 ...

被外界视为良品铺子"白衣骑士"武汉国资，最终未能成功入主这家陷入困境的休闲零食巨头。 一个月后，广州轻工变更诉讼请求，除要求宁波汉意继续履行股权转让协议外，还要求其按照交易总价 款日万分之五计算持续违约金，并承担为办理本案诉讼保全产生的损失及律师费。 至7月31日，广州轻工要求的违约金等费用暂计至10.23亿元。 这也意味着，这场原本可能改变良品铺子命运的交易，在酝酿90天后无果而终。 良品铺子控股股东仍为宁波汉意，实际控制人仍为杨红春、杨银芬、张国强和潘继红。 本次交易终止的直接原因，是宁波汉意与广州轻工工贸集团有限公司的股权转让纠纷。 今年5月，宁波汉意就曾与广州轻工签署《协议书》，约定广州轻工在尽职调查后有权受让良品铺子部 分股份。 然而，宁波汉意后续并未与广州轻工签署正式股权交易协议，转而与武汉长江国际贸易集团有限公司达 成合作。 这一行为引起了广州轻工的不满，7月14日，其提起诉讼并申请财产保全，导致宁波汉意所持良品铺子 19.89%股份被冻结。 广州轻工在与宁波汉意的股权转让纠纷案中态度坚决。 良品铺子10月16日晚间公告，因协议约定的生效条件未全部达成，控股股东宁波汉意创业投资合伙企业 及其一致 ...

Core Points - Guoao Technology has announced a new major lawsuit regarding a share transfer dispute, with the amount in question reaching 61.4093 million yuan [1][2] - The lawsuit involves Guoao Technology as the plaintiff and several defendants, including Dongfang Gaosheng Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Muyu Enterprise Management Center [1][2] - The case is currently accepted by the Shanghai Putuo District People's Court and has not yet officially opened [1][2] Summary by Sections - **Lawsuit Details** - The lawsuit is based on a share transfer agreement signed on December 14, 2021, where Guoao Technology acquired a 51% stake in Donggao (Guangdong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. [1] - The agreement included performance guarantees, with a commitment for a net profit of no less than 50 million yuan for 2024 [1] - The audited report for 2024 showed a net profit of approximately 8.77252877 million yuan, falling short of the guaranteed amount [1] - **Claims and Responsibilities** - Guoao Technology is requesting the defendants to pay the overdue performance compensation of 61.4093 million yuan [2] - Defendants 3 and 4, who are the current and former managing partners of defendant 2, are expected to bear unlimited joint liability for the debts [2] - The lawsuit also includes claims for litigation fees and other reasonable expenses to be borne by all defendants [2] - **Court Proceedings** - Guoao Technology has received a summons from the court, with a pre-trial meeting scheduled for October 29, 2025 [2] - The company has indicated that this lawsuit is a legitimate action to protect its rights, but it cannot currently assess the impact on its profits for the current and future periods [2]

Core Viewpoint - The company Guoao Technology has announced a significant lawsuit involving a claim amounting to 61.4093 million yuan due to a dispute over a share transfer agreement [1] Summary by Relevant Sections - **Lawsuit Details** - The lawsuit was initiated by Guoao Technology against multiple defendants, including Dongfang Gaosheng Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Muyu Enterprise Management Center (Limited Partnership), Hu Chongchong, and He Jianghua [1] - The case arises from a dispute related to performance compensation stipulated in the share transfer agreement [1] - **Financial Implications** - The claimed amount in the lawsuit is 61.4093 million yuan, which reflects the performance compensation that the plaintiff alleges is owed by the defendants [1] - **Legal Proceedings** - The defendants are required to complete the payment by May 14, 2025, but the plaintiff has not received any payment to date [1] - The lawsuit has been filed with the People's Court of Putuo District in Shanghai and is currently accepted but has not yet formally commenced [1]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court has ruled in favor of the company, rejecting all claims made by the plaintiff regarding a share transfer dispute [1][2] - The plaintiff, Ningbo Free Trade Zone Zhichu Venture Capital Partnership and Huang Liang, sought a total of 49,260,783.32 RMB in share transfer payments and an additional 1,693,980.00 RMB in subsidies, totaling over 50 million RMB [1] - The court's decision also stated that the plaintiff is responsible for the case acceptance fee of 312,274 RMB and preservation fee of 5,000 RMB [1] Group 2 - The company stated that the court's ruling will not adversely affect its financial performance and will closely monitor the situation while adhering to information disclosure obligations [2] - The company emphasized that all relevant information will be disclosed through designated media and the Shanghai Stock Exchange website, urging investors to pay attention to future announcements [2]

这起仲裁案件源于元生智汇与鼎盛投资签署的回购协议。根据《仙游县元生智汇科技有限公司厂房及配套设施转让回购协议书》约定，元生智汇需在2025年 7月13日前，以8.06亿元价格向鼎盛投资回购元生智汇产业园的土地使用权及建筑物。然而回购期限已过，元生智汇未能按时办理回购手续并支付相应款 项。 在这一担保链条中，春兴精工承担着关键的反担保责任。早在2021年，春兴精工与仙游县人民政府、鼎盛投资等各方签署了一系列协议，同意由鼎盛投资以 8.06亿元购买元生智汇产业园的土地及建筑物，并由元生智汇回租和回购。春兴精工还为仙游国财向元生智汇提供的回购及租金增信服务提供了反担保。如 果元生智汇最终败诉且未能履行仲裁裁决，仙游国财可能需要承担连带担保责任，进而触发春兴精工的反担保责任。在扣除已支付的3.99亿元保证金后，春 兴精工将面临4.07亿元的剩余回购本金支付压力。 子公司面临巨额仲裁申请 元生智汇近日收到福州仲裁委员会出具的《案件受理通知书》。申请人仙游县鼎盛投资有限公司要求元生智汇立即办理产业园土地使用权及建筑物回购手 续，并支付回购款8.06亿元。同时要求仙游县仙财国有资产投资营运有限公司对上述款项承担连带担保责任 ...

证券代码：002596 证券简称：海南瑞泽 公告编号：2025-041 （一）诉讼各方当事人名称 海南瑞泽新型建材股份有限公司 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露的内容真实、准确、完整，没有虚 假记载、误导性陈述或重大遗漏。 特别提示： 期后利润的影响存在不确定性。 一、本次诉讼受理的基本情况 因海南瑞泽新型建材股份有限公司（以下简称"公司"）与华润建材科技有 限公司（原名华润水泥投资有限公司，以下简称"华润公司"）、肇庆市金岗水 泥有限公司（以下简称"金岗水泥"）存在股权转让纠纷，公司向海南省三亚市 城郊人民法院递交了民事起诉状。 近日，公司收到海南省三亚市城郊人民法院送达的《受理案件通知书》 （〔2025〕 琼 0271 民初 16295 号），就公司诉华润公司、金岗水泥股权转让纠纷一案，海 南省三亚市城郊人民法院于 2025 年 7 月 21 日立案。 二、本次诉讼的基本情况 原告：海南瑞泽新型建材股份有限公司 被告一：华润建材科技有限公司 被告二：肇庆市金岗水泥有限公司 诉讼机构名称：海南省三亚市城郊人民法院 （二）事实和理由 原告将其所持有的被告二金岗水泥 85%的股权转让给华润公司。股权转让完成后 ...

Core Points - The company is currently involved in a significant lawsuit as the plaintiff, with the case having been accepted but not yet heard in court [1][2] - The lawsuit pertains to a dispute over the "Southwest Region Electronic Gas Cooperation Agreement," where the company is seeking to terminate agreements and recover a performance bond of 20 million RMB [1][3] - The company has raised jurisdictional objections, which were initially rejected but later upheld by a higher court, transferring the case to a different court for further proceedings [2][3] Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit involves claims against Lai Minggui for failing to provide packaging materials and delaying trial production, which hindered the fulfillment of the contract [1] - The company is also pursuing a separate lawsuit regarding a share transfer dispute with Lai Minggui and Zhongfu Energy Company, seeking confirmation of agreements and compensation for damages totaling 23 million RMB [1][3] - A preliminary intention for settlement has been expressed by both parties, leading to a request for postponement of the court hearing to facilitate negotiations [3] Financial Impact - The company cannot currently estimate the impact of the lawsuit on its profits for the current or future periods, as the final judgment remains uncertain [1][4]

Group 1 - The company, Guilin Tourism Co., Ltd., filed a civil lawsuit on April 10, 2024, regarding a stock transfer dispute with specific individuals and a design engineering company [1] - The court ruled in favor of Guilin Tourism, ordering the defendants to assist in the stock transfer registration within fifteen days of the judgment taking effect [2] - As of the announcement date, the company has other unresolved small lawsuits and arbitration matters totaling approximately 13.3 million yuan, which accounts for 1.24% of the company's audited net assets as of December 31, 2024 [2] Group 2 - The current lawsuit judgment is a first-instance ruling and has not yet taken effect, leaving the final outcome uncertain and its impact on the company's current or future profits indeterminate [2]