2025.06. 16 公告信息显示，在甘肃矿区人民法院正在审理的一起贷款担保纠纷中，贵州长征作为担保人，为一笔 本息合计超过2.7亿元的贷款提供了担保，从而被债权人起诉，要求承担连带责任。 从这笔看似平常的上市公司转让下属公司股权的交易切入，第一财经记者调查发现了一些不寻常的隐 秘事项：2018年，上市公司华明装备以近4亿元的代价从曾经在A股市场翻云覆雨的银河系潘琦手中 收购贵州长征，却在六年后不得不以100万元剥离。高买低卖的交易背后，意外牵出了兰州银行 作者 | 第一财 经 张丽华、魏中原 然而，兰州银行向关联公司兰州三维汇成置业有限公司（下称："三维汇成"）转让上述贷款对应的 债权，之后发生的偿债官司在诉讼调查中暴露的关联交易疑点，将金融机构放贷合规性与资本系族利 益勾连的监管灰色地带推向聚光灯下。 2025年4月16日，华明装备（002270.SZ）披露，计划以100万元的价格，转让全资孙公司贵州长 征电气有限公司（下称："贵州长征"）100% 的股权。而就在六年前，该公司收购贵州长征的价 格，高达3.98亿元。 100 万股权转让牵出巨额担保案 贵州长征突然被债权人起诉追偿债务，是华明装备转让股权 ...

Core Viewpoint - Huaming Equipment plans to divest its wholly-owned subsidiary Guizhou Changzheng Electric Co., Ltd. for 1 million yuan, a significant drop from the 398 million yuan paid six years ago, due to a lawsuit from creditors seeking debt recovery [1][2]. Group 1: Company Actions and Financial Implications - The divestment is a response to Guizhou Changzheng being sued by creditors for over 270 million yuan in loans for which it acted as a guarantor [2][4]. - Huaming Equipment stated that the guarantee obligations were not disclosed by the previous owners, leading to potential financial risks and uncertainties [4][5]. - The company aims to optimize its asset structure and mitigate legal risks by transferring the subsidiary [4][5]. Group 2: Debt and Guarantee Issues - The loans in question were issued by Lanzhou Bank, with Guizhou Changzheng providing guarantees for multiple loans totaling 11 billion yuan to three trade companies with minimal capital [2][6][14]. - The loans were linked to a broader scheme involving multiple companies and individuals, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the transactions and the financial health of the guarantors [8][19]. - The three borrowing companies had a combined registered capital of less than 60 million yuan, yet secured substantial loans, indicating potential irregularities in the lending process [14][23]. Group 3: Connections and Regulatory Concerns - The investigation revealed connections between the borrowing companies and the controlling entities of the guarantors, suggesting a network of interests that may have influenced the loan approvals [8][21]. - The guarantors included companies and individuals with a history of financial difficulties and regulatory issues, raising questions about the due diligence performed by Lanzhou Bank [23][28]. - The lack of transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements in the guarantee agreements has been highlighted, with significant implications for corporate governance and accountability [26][27].