Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal actions taken by Tianjian Accounting Firm, Dongxing Securities, and Kangda Law Firm against 39 defendants, including Geer Software, for a total claim amount of approximately 372 million yuan, stemming from the fraudulent issuance case of Zeda Yisheng [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Claims - Geer Software is one of the defendants in three lawsuits filed by the aforementioned firms, which are seeking to recover losses after compensating investors a total of 493 million yuan [2][4]. - The lawsuits involve three separate cases with claimed amounts of 1,234.55 million yuan (principal 1,175.576 million yuan, interest 58.974 million yuan), 2,153.32 million yuan, and 334.855 million yuan respectively [4]. - The lawsuits are a continuation of the Zeda Yisheng fraudulent issuance case, where the three firms acted as intermediaries during Zeda Yisheng's IPO [4][5]. Group 2: Background of Zeda Yisheng Case - Zeda Yisheng was listed on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board on June 23, 2020, and was found to have committed financial fraud both before and after its listing [5]. - The company inflated its operating income by 342 million yuan and profits by 187 million yuan from 2016 to 2019, and continued to falsify financial statements in its 2020 and 2021 annual reports [5][7]. - In April 2023, Zeda Yisheng faced administrative penalties from the China Securities Regulatory Commission, leading to investor lawsuits against the company and its intermediaries [7]. Group 3: Implications of the Legal Actions - The lawsuits represent a significant development in the accountability mechanisms within the capital market, as intermediaries shift from passive compensation to actively pursuing those responsible for the fraud [7]. - The case is seen as a breakthrough in establishing a "responsibility closed loop," where all parties involved in the fraudulent activities may face legal consequences [7]. - The actions signal a dynamic balance in the responsibilities of intermediaries, where diligent parties can mitigate losses through recovery efforts, while negligent parties expose their risk management failures [7].