Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant financial and legal issues surrounding Huaming Equipment's divestiture of its subsidiary Guizhou Changzheng Electric Co., which was sold for 1 million yuan after being acquired for 398 million yuan six years prior. The divestiture was prompted by a lawsuit against Guizhou Changzheng for debt repayment, revealing deeper connections to a larger financial scheme involving multiple companies and individuals [1][2][6]. Group 1 - Huaming Equipment plans to transfer 100% of its subsidiary Guizhou Changzheng for 1 million yuan, a stark contrast to the 398 million yuan paid six years ago [1][2]. - The transfer is a direct result of a lawsuit against Guizhou Changzheng, which acted as a guarantor for a loan exceeding 270 million yuan [2][5]. - The investigation reveals that the loan was part of a larger scheme involving 11 billion yuan in loans to three "mini" trading companies, backed by a complex network of 16 guarantors [2][10][23]. Group 2 - The loans were issued by Lanzhou Bank, which later transferred the debt to Sanwei Huicheng, raising questions about the compliance and transparency of the lending process [3][36]. - The three borrowing companies, despite having minimal registered capital, received substantial loans due to the extensive guarantee network, which included individuals and companies with questionable financial health [22][23]. - The article highlights the intricate relationships between the borrowing companies and the guarantors, suggesting a coordinated effort to secure financing despite apparent risks [10][28]. Group 3 - The guarantors include individuals and companies linked to the "Galaxy System," which has a history of financial misconduct and regulatory scrutiny [32][33]. - The article discusses the implications of these relationships, particularly in the context of the bankruptcy restructuring of Jianxin Group, which was closely tied to the loans issued [29][30]. - Concerns are raised about the regulatory oversight of Lanzhou Bank, especially given its status as a publicly listed entity during the loan issuance [35][36].

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].