Group 1 - ST Yishite (300376) has been sued by 10 individual investors for securities false statement liability, with a total claim amount of RMB 234,991 [1][2] - The civil ruling was received on September 22, 2025, from the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, which recognized the case as suitable for ordinary representative litigation [1][2] - The false statement date was March 15, 2018, and the disclosure date was May 12, 2023, with a benchmark price of RMB 7.06 on June 26, 2023 [1][2] Group 2 - The rights holders are defined as investors who purchased ST Yishite shares between March 15, 2018, and May 11, 2023, and held them after the market closed on May 11, 2023 [2] - Investors can apply for a review of the ruling within ten days of receiving the civil ruling if they disagree [2] - The final amount involved in the lawsuit remains uncertain, and the company will continue to monitor the case's progress and fulfill its information disclosure obligations [2]

Group 1 - The company, Derun Electronics, is under investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) for suspected violations of information disclosure, with investor lawsuits already initiated totaling 83.5952 million yuan [1][2] - As of the half-year report in 2025, the company has received lawsuits from 19 investors since July 2025, with a total claim amount of 190,000 yuan [1] - The company acknowledged discrepancies in accounts receivable disclosures from the semi-annual reports of 2020 to 2022, leading to inaccurate financial report data [2] Group 2 - The company has undertaken corrective measures regarding the identified issues and has revised its financial reports for 2020 and 2021, including retrospective adjustments due to accounting errors [2] - A notice from the company on December 30, 2023, confirmed the existence of discrepancies in the accounts receivable recovery situation reported in the regular reports from 2020 to 2022 [2]

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 根据最高人民法院虚假陈述司法解释，上市公司等因证券虚假陈述行为导致投资者权益受损，投资者可 以依法起诉索赔，索赔范围包括投资差额损失、佣金东方通和印花税损失。 "此前，我们已代理多批投资者向法院提交起诉材料。"厉健律师表示，根据司法解释，暂定：在2020年 4月29日至2025年4月14日期间买入东方通（300379）股票，并在2025年4月14日收盘还持有股票的受损 股民，可依法索赔。索赔条件以法院认定为准。（东方通维权入口） 股民索赔需提供证券开户信息查询单、股票对账单（2020年4月1日至今）、联系方式等。 【本文由浙江裕丰律师事务所厉健律师供稿，不代表新浪财经的立场。厉健律师，系中国法学会证券法 学研究会理事、中国证券业协会证券纠纷调解员，2009年荣获"浙江省优秀青年律师"称号。2003年至 今，厉健律师代理投资者告赢五粮液、大智慧等100余家上市公司并获赔，成效显著。其中，祥源文 化、赵薇案入选2019年度人民法院十大商事案例，杭萧钢构案入选2012年度"全国法院十大调解案例"， 辉丰股份案系江苏省首例证券纠纷普通代表人案。厉健律师接受中央电视台、 ...

Core Viewpoint - Beijing Orient Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Orient Telecom or *ST Dongtong) is facing administrative penalties for alleged securities fraud, including false statements in financial reports and significant misrepresentation in securities issuance documents [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations of Financial Misrepresentation - Orient Telecom is accused of falsifying financial data in its annual reports from 2019 to 2022, inflating revenue by amounts of 61.45 million, 84.85 million, 125.51 million, and 160.53 million yuan, which represented 12.29%, 13.25%, 14.54%, and 17.68% of reported revenues for those years respectively [1]. - The company also allegedly inflated profits by 52.23 million, 58.77 million, 79.48 million, and 123.69 million yuan during the same period, accounting for 34.11%, 22.72%, 30.35%, and 219.43% of the reported profit totals [1]. Group 2: Securities Issuance Misconduct - Orient Telecom fabricated significant false content in its securities issuance documents, particularly in the fundraising prospectus submitted between June and November 2022, which included false financial data from its annual reports [2]. - The company reported a total fundraising amount of approximately 2.20 billion yuan from the issuance of 106,024,096 shares [2]. Group 3: Regulatory Actions and Investor Rights - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) plans to impose a fine of 229 million yuan on Orient Telecom and a fine of 26.5 million yuan on its actual controller, Huang Yongjun, along with a 10-year market ban for him [2]. - Investors who suffered losses due to the alleged false statements can file lawsuits for compensation, which may include losses from price differences, commissions, and stamp duty [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The recent landmark cases in China highlight the legal consequences for company insiders who fail to fulfill their commitments to increase or not reduce their shareholdings, signaling a trend towards stricter accountability in the securities market [2][3][15]. Group 1: Case of Non-Compliance with Shareholding Increase Commitment - Shanghai Jinlitai Chemical Co., Ltd. announced that its president and a subsidiary's general manager planned to increase their shareholdings by at least 300 million yuan within six months, but failed to do so, leading to a lawsuit for damages exceeding 9 million yuan [3][4]. - The court ruled that the failure to fulfill the public commitment constituted a false statement, as the executives did not demonstrate genuine intent to increase their holdings, which misled investors [5][6]. - The court's decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, indicating a potential increase in lawsuits related to non-compliance with shareholding commitments [6][15]. Group 2: Implications of Non-Compliance with Non-Reduction Commitment - The legal framework established by the new Securities Law suggests that any public commitment made by company insiders could lead to liability for damages if not fulfilled, including commitments not to reduce shareholdings [7][8]. - A notable case involved a shareholder who violated a commitment to limit share reductions, resulting in a court ruling that required the shareholder to return the profits from the premature sale of shares [9][10]. - The court recognized that commitments made by shareholders are legally binding and that violations can lead to significant financial repercussions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to such commitments [9][10]. Group 3: Legal Considerations and Future Trends - The expansion of liability for false statements in securities law raises questions about the balance of interests and the need for reasonable limitations on such liabilities, particularly for minor violations [15][16]. - The court's approach to these new types of securities violations suggests a careful consideration of the actual impact of non-compliance on market dynamics, rather than a blanket application of liability [15][17]. - The evolving legal landscape indicates that future cases may increasingly address the nuances of commitment violations, potentially leading to more complex legal interpretations and outcomes [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Remote Cable Co., Ltd., is responding to a second round of inquiry from the China Securities Regulatory Commission regarding its application for a specific stock issuance, addressing issues related to past violations of information disclosure regulations and ongoing investor lawsuits [1][3]. Group 1: Company Violations and Penalties - The company failed to timely disclose external guarantees, related party transactions, contingent liabilities, and significant lawsuits, resulting in a warning and a fine of 500,000 yuan from the Jiangsu Regulatory Bureau [3][21]. - The former actual controller of the company, Xia Jiantong, received a warning and a fine of 600,000 yuan for his involvement in these violations [3][21]. - The violations occurred between 2017 and 2019, and the company argues that they do not constitute recent illegal activities within the last three years [3][20]. Group 2: Investor Lawsuits - The company has received one investor lawsuit related to false statements, with the plaintiff seeking compensation of 221,842 yuan for economic losses incurred from purchasing the company's stock based on misleading information [5][20]. - The company has engaged a law firm to handle the lawsuit, which is currently in the evidence exchange phase [6][20]. - The company believes that the statute of limitations for potential claims has expired, as the relevant disclosure violations were publicly known by April 2019 [10][20]. Group 3: Financial Impact and Future Outlook - The company estimates that the maximum potential compensation amount related to the ongoing lawsuit could reach 16.82 million yuan, but asserts that this will not significantly impact its operations or financial status [20][19]. - The company has taken steps to rectify past violations and improve governance, with a new management team in place since the actual controller changed to the Wuxi State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission [21][28]. - The company has reported steady growth in revenue and net profit since 2020, indicating a positive market image and operational stability [28].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has ruled that former executives of *ST Jintai (300225) are liable for damages due to false statements regarding share buyback commitments, marking a significant case in securities law since the revision of the Securities Law [1] Group 1: Legal Cases and Trends - The Shanghai Financial Court has accepted over 23,000 securities false statement liability disputes in seven years, averaging nine cases per day [1] - The number of administrative penalties by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has increased from 310 in 2018 to 592 in 2024, indicating a growing trend in enforcement [2] - By the end of 2024, the Shanghai Financial Court had accepted over 18,000 securities false statement liability disputes, with a total amount in dispute of 7.646 billion yuan [3] Group 2: Investor Demographics and Protection - Natural persons constitute 99.74% of the plaintiffs in these disputes, highlighting the vulnerability of small investors in the market [3] - The court has developed a "Smart Cabin" litigation service mechanism to assist small investors in calculating losses and filing claims efficiently [3] - From 2018 to 2024, the court successfully mediated 3,616 cases, resolving disputes for nearly 4,000 investors [3] Group 3: Types of False Statements - The report categorizes the types of false statements, with financial data fraud being the most common, accounting for over one-third of cases [4] - Other common issues include concealing related party transactions and significant contracts [4] - The report identifies five main types of disputes related to false statements, including those involving internal personnel and securities intermediaries [4] Group 4: Legal Challenges and Developments - Recent legal disputes have introduced new challenges, such as the application of laws across different capital market segments and the identification of predictive information [5] - The Shanghai Financial Court has clarified that companies cannot evade disclosure obligations under the guise of predictive information [5] - The court is working to establish a clear liability framework for various parties involved in false statement cases, including issuers and intermediaries [6] Group 5: Accountability and Outcomes - The court has seen a significant increase in lawsuits against controlling shareholders, executives, and intermediaries, emphasizing the need for accountability [6] - In cases where false statements were deemed not to exist, the court dismissed claims in 4 instances, while 8 cases were dismissed for lack of materiality [6] - Among the cases where investors won, 97.47% of the judgments supported the investors' claims, often in conjunction with administrative penalties against the issuers [6]

Core Viewpoint - The first-instance judgment of the Dragon Power Bio case has been announced, with 1,618 investors entitled to compensation for investment losses totaling 274 million yuan and legal fees of 809,000 yuan [3][5]. Group 1: Case Details - The Jinan Intermediate People's Court ruled that the total investment loss claims against Dragon Power Bio amount to 274 million yuan, with additional legal fee claims of 809,000 yuan [5]. - Defendant Cheng Shaobo is jointly liable for the debts owed to the investors, while other defendants share liability within certain proportions [5]. - Two intermediary institutions are included in the list of defendants, with Guolian Minsheng Securities bearing 5% of the losses and Lixin Accounting Firm responsible for 30% of the losses [5]. Group 2: Company Background - Dragon Power Bio, established in June 2001 and listed in 2011, was once known as the "first stock of biofuels" due to its unique circular economy model [7]. - The company utilizes corn and corn cobs as raw materials to produce functional sugars, starch, and other products, while recycling waste to create second-generation fuel ethanol [7]. - The company faced mandatory delisting from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on May 22, 2020, due to three consecutive years of losses, with total losses amounting to 7.1 billion yuan from 2017 to 2019 [7][8]. Group 3: Financial Misconduct - From 2015 to 2017, Dragon Power Bio engaged in financial misconduct, including altering financial data and forging accounting documents, leading to inflated assets and profits [8]. - Specific instances of financial manipulation include a nearly 500 million yuan asset inflation and a profit increase of approximately 140 million yuan for the year 2015 [8]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has highlighted this case as a typical example of financial fraud, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to accounting standards and disclosure obligations [9].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent court ruling regarding a lawsuit against Longli Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (龙力生物), highlighting the financial implications for Guolian Minsheng Securities Co., Ltd. (国联民生) and its subsidiary, Guolian Minsheng Securities Underwriting and Sponsorship Co., Ltd. [2][5][10] Group 1: Lawsuit Overview - The lawsuit involves 1,618 investors claiming a total of 274.98 million yuan in damages due to false statements made by Longli Biological [5][12] - The court ruled that Guolian Minsheng Securities Underwriting and Sponsorship is liable for 5% of the damages, amounting to approximately 13.75 million yuan [5][9] - The case is currently in the first instance stage, with the possibility of appeal by either party [6][10] Group 2: Financial Impact - The lawsuit's financial implications are not expected to significantly affect the current or future profits of Guolian Minsheng, as the company maintains a stable financial status [10] - The total amount claimed by the plaintiffs includes investment losses, notification fees, and legal fees, with specific amounts detailed for each category [7][12] - The court also ordered the defendants to bear the litigation costs, which total approximately 1.41 million yuan, with Guolian Minsheng responsible for 5% of this amount [9][12] Group 3: Company Background - Longli Biological was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in July 2011 but faced significant financial difficulties, leading to its stock being suspended in May 2019 and ultimately delisted in July 2020 [3][4] - The company has been under scrutiny due to consecutive years of negative net assets and unqualified audit reports [3][4]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruling on the securities fraud liability dispute involving Shandong Longli Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (Longli Bio) has concluded after five years post-delisting, with 1,618 investors claiming a total of 274 million yuan in investment loss and additional legal fees [1][2][3]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Financial Implications - The Jinan Intermediate People's Court ruled that the 1,618 plaintiffs are entitled to a total of 274 million yuan in investment loss claims and 809,000 yuan in legal fees, with five representative plaintiffs also entitled to 80,600 yuan in notification fees [1][3]. - Defendant Cheng Shaobo is jointly liable for the debts owed to the plaintiffs, while other defendants will bear joint liability within a certain proportion [1][3]. - Guolian Minsheng Securities is liable for 5% of the plaintiffs' losses, while Lixin Accounting Firm is liable for 30% of the losses [1][3]. Group 2: Background and Context - Longli Bio was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on July 28, 2011, and was once known as the "first stock of biofuels" [2]. - The company was placed under risk warning in January 2018 and was officially delisted in July 2020 due to significant fraudulent activities, including profit inflation from 2015 to mid-2017 [2][3]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) previously identified Longli Bio for systematic fraud, resulting in fines totaling 3.38 million yuan against 18 responsible parties [2]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Future Outlook - The collective lawsuit initiated by over 1,600 investors against Longli Bio and associated parties has taken three years to reach a verdict [3]. - Following the ruling, Guolian Minsheng announced the potential for appeals, indicating that the final judgment remains uncertain [4]. - The company maintains a stable financial status, asserting that the lawsuit's financial implications will not significantly affect its current or future profits [4].