Core Viewpoint - The company claims that the judgment against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, for being an accomplice in contract fraud lacks legal and factual basis, asserting that it was merely a storage intermediary and not involved in the fraudulent activities [1][5]. Group 1: Background of the Case - The dispute originated from a palm oil import agency business between Yunnan Huijia and Anhui Huawen, where Anhui Huawen acted as the agent and Yunnan Huijia as the principal [2]. - Guangzhou Yihai was involved as a storage intermediary from 2008 to 2014, responsible for storing palm oil imported by Anhui Huawen on behalf of Yunnan Huijia [2]. - The case escalated due to allegations of bribery and fraudulent activities involving Yunnan Huijia's actual controller, Zhang Lihua, who allegedly manipulated the transaction terms and engaged in corrupt practices [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Company Response - Guangzhou Yihai was found guilty as an accomplice in contract fraud, resulting in a fine of 1 million RMB and a joint compensation responsibility for 1.881 billion RMB in economic losses to Anhui Huawen [1][5]. - The company has filed an appeal against the judgment, asserting that it did not participate in or have knowledge of the fraudulent activities, and that the judgment was based on erroneous facts and legal interpretations [5][6]. - The company emphasizes that it fulfilled its contractual obligations and maintained proper communication regarding inventory and transactions with Anhui Huawen [6][7]. Group 3: Financial Implications and Market Position - The prosecution claims that Anhui Huawen suffered direct economic losses of 3.23 billion RMB and indirect losses of 2.015 billion RMB due to the fraudulent activities, with Guangzhou Yihai being implicated for 1.881 billion RMB of the direct losses [4]. - The company argues that its purchase prices for palm oil were within reasonable market ranges and did not yield any improper benefits from the alleged fraudulent activities [7]. - The company has raised concerns about the impartiality and legality of the audit report used in the judgment, claiming it was biased and lacked professional integrity [8].

Core Viewpoint - The stock price of Jinlongyu has experienced a decline, with a year-to-date drop of 6.89% and a recent 5-day drop of 8.05%, indicating potential concerns regarding its market performance [1] Company Overview - Jinlongyu, officially known as Yihai Kerry Arawana Holdings Co., Ltd., is based in Shanghai and was established on June 17, 2005, with its IPO on October 15, 2020 [1] - The company specializes in the research, production, and sales of kitchen foods, feed raw materials, and oil technology products, with revenue contributions of 61.85% from kitchen foods and 37.33% from feed raw materials and oil technology [1] Financial Performance - For the period from January to September 2025, Jinlongyu reported a revenue of 184.27 billion yuan, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 5.02%, while the net profit attributable to shareholders increased by 92.06% to 2.749 billion yuan [2] - Since its A-share listing, Jinlongyu has distributed a total of 2.64 billion yuan in dividends, with 1.621 billion yuan distributed over the past three years [3] Shareholder Structure - As of September 30, 2025, the number of shareholders increased to 115,000, with an average of 4,720 circulating shares per person, a decrease of 0.68% [2] - The largest circulating shareholder is Hong Kong Central Clearing Limited, holding 25.3962 million shares, an increase of 330,800 shares from the previous period [3] - Other significant shareholders include various ETFs, with notable changes in holdings among them, such as a decrease in shares held by E Fund's ChiNext ETF and Huatai-PineBridge's CSI 300 ETF [3]

Core Viewpoint - The company Jinlongyu is facing significant legal challenges, including a lawsuit from former Hubei tycoon Lan Shili and a contract fraud case involving its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, with potential liabilities amounting to 1.8 billion yuan [2][4][10]. Group 1: Legal Issues - Jinlongyu recently won a defamation lawsuit against Lan Shili, who was ordered to pay 10,000 yuan in damages and issue an apology [4][6]. - Despite complying with the court's ruling, Lan Shili claims that Jinlongyu has not reported the payment and has instead sought to freeze his accounts, escalating the conflict [6][8]. - Lan Shili has vowed to continue the legal battle, seeking further compensation and an apology from Jinlongyu [8][15]. Group 2: Contract Fraud Case - Guangzhou Yihai is embroiled in a contract fraud case involving a loss of over 5.2 billion yuan, with 1.881 billion yuan directly attributed to its actions [10][12]. - The fraud involved a scheme where the payment terms were altered through bribery, allowing a company to take palm oil without full payment [10][12]. - The court has identified a key employee of Guangzhou Yihai as an accomplice in the fraud, leading to a significant legal and financial burden for Jinlongyu [17]. Group 3: Financial Impact - Jinlongyu's market value has dropped to over 160 billion yuan, significantly lower than its peak [4]. - The company's net profit was reported at 2.5 billion yuan last year and 2.7 billion yuan in the first three quarters of this year, indicating that any confirmed liabilities could adversely affect its financial performance [14].

Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves Guangzhou Yihai, which was accused of being an accomplice in a contract fraud case related to Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia [1][2] - The essence of the case is that Anhui Huawen, in collusion with Yunnan Huijia, engaged in fraudulent activities that led to significant losses of state assets [1][2][3] - Guangzhou Yihai claims to be the victim of deception, asserting that it was misled by Anhui Huawen's executives [1][4] Group 2: Legal Arguments - The company argues that the first-instance judgment was fundamentally flawed in its factual findings and legal application [2] - Key points include: - Anhui Huawen's losses were self-inflicted due to collusion with Yunnan Huijia, not due to any actions by Guangzhou Yihai [2] - Guangzhou Yihai maintained due diligence and complied with contractual obligations, thus not participating in any fraudulent activities [2][3] - The company did not gain any benefits from the alleged fraudulent actions [2][3] Group 3: Procedural Violations - The investigation phase was marred by intentional concealment of case information by the police [3][8] - The prosecution failed to properly inform Guangzhou Yihai of the case's status, violating its litigation rights [3][8] - The court's decision to separate trials and deny other defendants' appearances hindered the fact-finding process [3][8] Group 4: Financial Implications - The first-instance judgment imposed a compensation of 1.881 billion RMB on Guangzhou Yihai, which the company contests as baseless [9][10] - The company asserts that the judgment could have uncertain impacts on its financial performance, pending the outcome of the appeal [12] Group 5: Company’s Position and Future Actions - The company emphasizes its commitment to legal compliance and social responsibility, having invested approximately 100 billion RMB in China [4][5] - Guangzhou Yihai plans to exhaust all legal avenues to appeal the judgment and clear its name [4][11] - The company expresses confidence that the second-instance court will deliver a fair ruling [15]

Core Points - The former Hubei tycoon Lan Shili has publicly declared war on the food oil giant Jinlongyu, citing a personal financial crisis stemming from a legal dispute over the transportation of edible oil [1][5] - The conflict originated from a July 2024 incident where it was reported that oil tankers transported edible oil without proper cleaning, raising safety concerns [1][5] - Following a court ruling, Lan Shili was ordered to pay 10,000 yuan in damages to Yihai Kerry, the brand owner of Jinlongyu, but mistakenly transferred 100,000 yuan instead [3][4] Legal Dispute - The initial legal action was taken by Yihai Kerry against Lan Shili for defamation after he made claims about the safety of their products on social media [1][3] - The Shanghai courts ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, leading to a compensation order against Lan Shili [1][3] - Despite fulfilling the court's compensation order, Lan Shili accused Yihai Kerry of bad faith for not reporting the receipt of the payment and continuing to seek enforcement actions against him [5][7] Financial Implications - Lan Shili's financial troubles were exacerbated when his bank account was frozen due to the enforcement actions taken by Yihai Kerry, which he claims nearly left him homeless [5][7] - He is now seeking to recover the excess payment made and is pursuing further legal action against Yihai Kerry for what he describes as unjust enrichment [7]

Group 1 - The core point of the announcement is that the controlling shareholder Liu Jianjun has pledged part of his shares in the company for financing purposes [1] - The total number of shares pledged by Liu Jianjun is 55,946,663, which are classified as locked shares for executives [2] - The pledge is specifically for financing to replace the existing equity pledge for the acquisition of minority shares in Mianyang Caizaiwang Grain and Oil Co., Ltd. by Xingchuang Investment, and it does not involve meeting the company's operational needs [4] Group 2 - The pledge will not affect the company's production operations or governance, and it does not involve any performance compensation obligations [4] - The announcement includes references to the necessary documentation for the share pledge, such as the securities pledge registration certificate and other documents required by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange [5]

Group 1 - The core point of the announcement is that the controlling shareholder, Liu Jianjun, has pledged part of his shares in Daodaquan Grain and Oil Co., Ltd. [1] - The pledged shares include 55,946,663 shares held by Liu Jianjun, which are classified as locked-up shares for executives [2] - The financing from this share pledge is intended to replace existing equity pledge financing for the acquisition of minority shares in Mianyang Caizaiwang Grain and Oil Co., Ltd. and does not relate to the company's operational needs [3] Group 2 - The total pledged shares by Liu Jianjun, Yao Jinting, and other associated parties are disclosed, indicating a significant level of share pledge activity [1] - The share pledge will not impact the company's production operations or governance, and there are no performance compensation obligations involved [4]

Core Viewpoint - The company firmly believes that it has not gained any improper benefits and asserts that the judgment against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, is unfounded, with plans to appeal the decision [3][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Guangzhou Yihai was sentenced to a fine of 1 million RMB and ordered to compensate for economic losses amounting to 1.881 billion RMB due to a contract fraud conviction [3]. - The company argues that the allegations of fraud are based on false documents created in collusion with other parties, and it emphasizes the implausibility of the claims regarding the storage of palm oil [4]. Group 2: Financial Performance - In Q3 2025, the company reported a revenue of 68.588 billion RMB, a year-on-year increase of 3.96%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 999 million RMB, reflecting a significant increase of 196.96% [4]. - The net profit for the first three quarters of the year totaled 2.749 billion RMB, with the amount involved in the legal case accounting for over 70% of last year's net profit [4][5]. Group 3: Management Statements - The company’s president stated that the impact of the judgment on current and future profits remains uncertain as the case is still under appeal [5]. - The chairman of the company expressed confidence in their integrity, suggesting that any wrongdoing would lead to personal consequences within the family [5].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jinlongyu, publicly responded for the first time after its subsidiary was convicted of contract fraud, emphasizing that it was misled and not involved in any fraudulent activities [2][4]. Group 1: Company Response - Jinlongyu held an investor communication meeting attended by key executives to clarify the situation following the court ruling against its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai [2]. - The company claims that the losses incurred by Anhui Huawen were due to collusion between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, asserting that Guangzhou Yihai was the deceived party [2][7]. - The company has filed an appeal against the first-instance ruling, which found Guangzhou Yihai guilty of contract fraud and ordered it to jointly compensate Anhui Huawen for losses amounting to RMB 18.81 billion [2][4]. Group 2: Details of the Case - The case involves allegations that Yunnan Huijia, through bribery, manipulated the transaction terms with Anhui Huawen, leading to significant financial discrepancies [6][8]. - The prosecution's indictment indicated that employees of Guangzhou Yihai accepted bribes and assisted in the fraudulent activities, but the company maintains that it was unaware of any wrongdoing [7][8]. - The timeline of the alleged fraudulent activities spans from 2008 to 2014, with the company asserting that all related business operations ceased in July 2014 [7][8]. Group 3: Company’s Defense - The company provided six reasons to support its claim of non-involvement in the fraud, highlighting the complicity of Anhui Huawen's management in the fraudulent activities [8][9]. - It was noted that the total storage capacity of Guangzhou Yihai is only 160,000 tons, making it implausible for the company to have stored over 1 million tons of palm oil as claimed by Anhui Huawen [9]. - The company emphasized that it has strict internal control processes and that any actions taken by former employees were personal and not representative of the company's practices [11].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Jinlongyu, publicly responded for the first time after its subsidiary was convicted of contract fraud, emphasizing that it was misled and did not participate in any fraudulent activities [3][4]. Group 1: Company Response - Jinlongyu held an investor communication meeting attended by key executives to clarify the situation regarding its subsidiary, Guangzhou Yihai, which was implicated in a contract fraud case [3]. - The company stated that the losses incurred by Anhui Huawen were due to collusion between Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia, asserting that Guangzhou Yihai was the deceived party [3][7]. - Following the court's ruling, Jinlongyu's stock price fell for two consecutive days, resulting in a market value loss of over 10 billion yuan [3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The case is currently in the appeal stage, and the company plans to apply for a retrial if the appeal is unsuccessful [4]. - The court found Guangzhou Yihai guilty as an accomplice in the contract fraud, with a financial liability of 1.881 billion yuan alongside Yunnan Huijia [3][4]. Group 3: Defense Arguments - The company presented six reasons to defend itself against the fraud allegations, including the assertion that the fraudulent actions were orchestrated by Anhui Huawen and Yunnan Huijia [7][9]. - It was highlighted that the fraudulent activities occurred between 2008 and 2014, and that Anhui Huawen had not raised any issues with Guangzhou Yihai until 2021, nearly a decade later [7][9]. - The company emphasized that it had strict internal control processes in place during the relevant period and denied any compliance issues [11]. Group 4: Operational Insights - Jinlongyu's total oil tank capacity is only 160,000 tons, making it implausible for it to store over 1 million tons of palm oil as claimed by Anhui Huawen [9]. - The company has established an AI technology application team to enhance operational efficiency and market competitiveness through data analysis and AI applications [11].