特此公告。 股票代码：000663 股票简称：永安林业 编号：2025-023 福建省永安林业（集团）股份有限公司 本公司及董事会全体成员保证信息披露内容的真实、准确、完整，没 有虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏。 特别提示： 该笔涉案金额已在以前年度全额计提预计负债，具体处理结果以 及对公司业绩的影响，将依据本次判决的实际履行及执行情况而定。 近日，福建省永安林业（ 集团）股份有限公司（ 以下简称"公 司"或"永安林业"）收到福建省高级人民法院（ 以下简称"省高院"） 《民事判决书》（ （ 2024）闽民终 658 号〕，省高院就张强等 17 人与永安林业、苏加旭、陈松柏、陈振宗、吴景贤证券虚假陈述 责任纠纷案作出终审判决，现将本次诉讼有关情况公告如下： 一、本次诉讼的基本情况 （一）诉讼当事人基本情况 上诉人 原审被告）：福建省永安林业 集团）股份有限公 司 被上诉人 原审原告）：张强等 17 人 原审被告：苏加旭 原审被告：陈松柏 原审被告：陈振宗 原审被告：吴景贤 （二）诉讼案件基本情况 福建省永安林业 集团）股份有限公司因不服福建省福州市 中级人民法院 2023）闽 01 民初 525 号民事判决， ...

Core Viewpoint - The company, Yiwei Lithium Energy, has announced its plan for a secondary listing in Hong Kong, aiming to regain investor trust amid a backdrop of declining investor enthusiasm and ongoing legal challenges related to securities fraud [2][4][5]. Group 1: Company Performance and Legal Issues - Yiwei Lithium Energy's stock price has shown a lackluster response to the Hong Kong listing announcement, with a slight decline of 0.29% from 45.02 CNY on June 9 to 44.89 CNY on June 24, with 8 out of 12 trading days resulting in losses [2][4]. - The company is currently facing over a hundred investor lawsuits, primarily related to securities fraud, with 94 new civil lawsuits filed in a single day in April 2023 [5][7]. - Yiwei Lithium Energy has a history of legal disputes, with 128 cases related to securities fraud, and has received a warning from the Guangdong Securities Regulatory Commission for failing to disclose related party transactions amounting to 2.31 billion CNY in a timely manner [7][9]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Debt Levels - The company's revenue growth has slowed, with a slight decrease of 0.3% in revenue to 48.615 billion CNY in 2024, and a modest net profit increase of only 0.6% [13]. - As of the first quarter of 2025, the company's asset-liability ratio has risen to approximately 61.98%, significantly above the industry average, indicating increasing financial pressure [15][16]. - Yiwei Lithium Energy has a short-term debt obligation of nearly 12 billion CNY, while its accounts receivable reached 12.808 billion CNY, equivalent to 314% of its annual net profit, raising concerns about cash flow and repayment risks [16][18]. Group 3: Global Expansion and Capital Raising - The company is pursuing a global strategy, having established manufacturing facilities in Hungary, Malaysia, and the United States, with overseas revenue accounting for about 24% of total income by 2024 [19][20]. - The planned Hong Kong IPO aims to raise approximately 30 billion HKD (around 25 billion CNY), which will be used for overseas factory projects and operational funding, potentially alleviating current financial pressures [24]. - Successful fundraising through the Hong Kong listing could enhance the company's brand recognition and credibility in international markets, particularly with partnerships involving major clients like BMW and Daimler [22][24].

Core Points - The recent development in the Kangde Xin case involves a lawsuit filed by Zhejiang Zhongtai Chuangying Asset Management Co., Ltd. against Kangde Xin Composite Materials Group Co., Ltd. for securities false statement liability, with the case now being handled by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court [2][3] - The lawsuit claims that Kangde Xin caused an investment loss of 5.147 billion yuan and additional costs, with a total claim amounting to 5.149 billion yuan [3] - The case stems from Kangde Xin's long-term financial fraud, which included fabricating sales and inflating profits, leading to a cumulative profit inflation of 11.53 billion yuan from 2015 to 2018 [3][4] Company Impact - Beijing Bank stated that the lawsuit will not have a substantial impact on its current or future profits, as it is not the primary responsible party among the 11 defendants [3][4] - The case has seen a change in jurisdiction from Nanjing Intermediate People's Court to Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, which may expedite the trial process due to the court's familiarity with the case [6] Regulatory Context - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) had previously imposed administrative penalties on Kangde Xin in 2021, and Beijing Bank faced warnings and a six-month suspension from underwriting debt financing tools due to its involvement in the fraud [4][5] - Legal experts indicate that the administrative findings from the CSRC may serve as important evidence in the civil lawsuit, although the standards for administrative and civil liability differ [5]

Core Viewpoint - The company, Hunan Baili Engineering Technology Co., Ltd., is currently facing a civil lawsuit regarding alleged false statements related to its securities, with the plaintiff seeking compensation for investment losses amounting to 15,000 RMB [2][3]. Summary by Sections Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit has been accepted by the Changsha Intermediate People's Court, but has not yet gone to trial [1]. - The plaintiff, individual investor Yang Faguang, claims that the company is liable for investment losses due to alleged violations in information disclosure [2]. Plaintiff's Claims - The plaintiff requests the court to order the company to compensate for stock investment losses of 15,000 RMB, with the final amount to be determined by the court [2]. - The plaintiff cites several issues, including a negative opinion on the internal control audit report for 2023, a qualified opinion on the 2023 financial statements, and the actual controller Wang Hairong's fund occupation amounting to 190 million RMB during 2022 and 2023 [2]. Impact on the Company - The lawsuit's outcome is uncertain as it has not yet been heard in court, and the company is actively working on related matters [3]. - The company is currently unable to assess the impact of the lawsuit on its current or future profits [2][3].

登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 证券代码：601169 证券简称：北京银行 公告编号：2025-029 北京银行股份有限公司关于收到应诉通知书的公告 本公司董事会及全体董事保证本公告内容不存在任何虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏，并对其内容 的真实性、准确性和完整性承担个别及连带责任。 一、本次诉讼的基本情况 2025年5月13日，北京银行股份有限公司（以下简称"本行"）收到江苏省苏州市中级人民法院送达的 （2025）苏05民初450号《应诉通知书》，获悉本行涉及浙江中泰创赢资产管理有限公司以证券虚假陈 述责任纠纷对康得新复合材料集团股份有限公司提起的诉讼。本案曾于2022年在江苏省南京市中级人民 法院立案。本案现移送至苏州中院受理，系存量案件，仅涉及管辖法院变更，诉讼请求等未发生变化。 截至本公告披露日，本次诉讼尚未开庭审理。 2、请求法院判令被告二至被告十一对被告一在本案第一项、第二项诉讼请求对原告应承担的给付义务 承担连带赔偿责任。 3、请求法院判令本案全部诉讼费以及其他相关费用由被告共同承担，包括但不限于原告诉讼费、律师 费、差旅费等。 三、其他尚未披露的诉讼仲裁事项 截至本公告披露 ...

◎记者 徐蔚 一桩投资者索赔案中，不仅中介机构要承担赔偿责任，保代个人也要承担连带责任。上海证券报记者从 相关代理律师处获悉，北京市高级人民法院已就投资机构诉蓝山科技证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件下达二 审判决，终审维持原判。这一裁决标志着我国证券领域首起保荐代表人需向投资者承担民事赔偿责任的 案件尘埃落定，其中保代个人承担连带责任的判决结果，在业内引发强烈震动。 蓝山科技案二审落槌 保代承担连带责任 行业责任边界或重塑 蓝山科技证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件二审落槌，终审维持原判：两名项目签字保代要与保荐机构华龙证 券承担40%范围内的连带责任。这是我国首例由保代向证券投资者承担民事赔偿责任的判决。业内人士 称，这个案件判决结果，为其他遭受证券欺诈的投资者诉讼起到重要的参考作用。同时，在一定程度上 震慑了证券市场违法行为。对证券行业而言，这一判决结果意义深远，它促使保代在执业过程中必须更 加审慎、勤勉尽责，真正发挥资本市场 "看门人" 的作用 这是我国首例由保代向证券投资者承担民事赔偿责任的判决。代理此案的北京冠都律师事务所律师王普 杰称，这个案件判决结果，为其他遭受证券欺诈的投资者诉讼起到重要的参考作用。同时，在一定 ...

5月8日，上海金融法院官微发布了一则有关金力泰因虚假增持承诺被投资者起诉的庭审视频，对两名投资者起诉 金力泰、时任公司高管袁翔、罗甸证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案件作出一审判决，认定被告针对上述增持未履行的事 实构成虚假陈述行为，应当对投资者的投资损失差额进行赔偿，成为全国首例因增持爽约被判赔偿的案例。 除法定信批"难产"之外，A股上市公司金力泰（300225.SZ）近期可谓麻烦缠身。因四年前公司时任高管的3亿元 虚假承诺至今未实施，被百余名投资人集体起诉，两名投资人向上海金融法院提起赔偿诉讼一审判决，开创全国 此类案例公开披露先河；又因公司2024年年报和2025年一季报信披违规遭证监会立案调查停牌，股价一度出现连 续两个20%跌停。 "预计更多的金力泰投资人会因此起诉公司和时任高管，而且根据公司业已披露的信息，已经有百余位投资者对这 三方进行了起诉，提出的赔偿总金额达到5200余万元。"5月9日，一位接手金力泰投资者索赔案件的律师对《华夏 时报》记者透露。 公开信息显示，早在2024年1月4日，金力泰就因定期报告存在虚假记载被证监会处罚。彼时，金力泰成立全资子 公司上海金力泰实业发展有限公司，由其参与浙江运发文化 ...

作为中国资本市场"首例特别代表人诉讼案"的后续追责行动，康美药业起诉广东正中珠江会计师事务所 （下称"正中珠江会计所"）的3.4亿元追偿纠纷案，迎来了最新进展。 据悉，广州中院出具裁定，鉴于该案属于新类型案件，案情复杂且具有法律适用指导意义，加之广州市越秀区 人民法院报请提级管辖申请，因此决定由广州中院负责审理此案。该案件将于2025年7月开庭审理。 提级管辖 近日，康美药业发布了一季报，在一季报中，康美药业发布了关于追偿权纠纷诉讼进展。 2021年11月12日，康美药业收到广州中院作出的（2020）粤01民初2171号《民事判决书》，判决公司向52037 名投资者赔偿投资损失245892.85万元，马兴田、许冬瑾、邱锡伟等承担连带清偿责任。公司在破产重整程序 中根据《重整计划》向52037名投资者完成了245892.85万元的赔偿，于2021年12月29日收到《民事裁定书》， 揭阳中院裁定确认公司重整计划已执行完毕。 康美药业于2023年10月12日收到（2023）粤0104民诉前调29380号《受理案件通知书》，广州市越秀区人民法 院已立案受理。2024年6月25日，该案件已组织第一次开庭。近期，广州中院 ...

近年来，北京金融法院受理的证券纠纷案件数量持续保持高位。《白皮书》显示，2021年3月至2024年12月，北京金融 法院共受理证券纠纷案件9246件，证券纠纷收案数占北京金融法院民商事案件收案数的44.07%，继续保持高位。 证券纠纷案件数量高企的背后，体现出我国针对证券市场违规违法行为不断加强监管力度。北京金融法院审判第二庭庭 长丁宇翔接受证券时报记者采访时表示，随着治理手段的强化，监管资源力度的持续加大，资本市场"严"的氛围持续巩固 并不断强化。 证券虚假陈述责任纠纷为最主要案由 从案由分布看，北京金融法院受理的证券纠纷中，占据首位的是证券欺诈责任纠纷案件，有9101件。其中，证券虚假陈 述责任纠纷案件数量占证券欺诈责任纠纷案件的99.7%。 "证券纠纷中最主要的案由为证券虚假陈述责任纠纷。"北京金融法院党组成员、副院长薛峰指出，从行为表现看，虚假陈 述行为包括虚假记载、误导性陈述、重大遗漏以及未按规定披露。财务造假是具体的虚假陈述表现，也是最为常见的违 法行为。从行为目的看，虚假陈述行为包括诱多型虚假陈述与诱空型虚假陈述。在北京金融法院受理的57个系列案件 中，涉及诱多型的虚假陈述是大多数，共53个。 ...