Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Financial Court ruled that the fund manager was liable for 40% of the investor's losses due to negligence in due diligence, despite the investment product being in an unliquidated state, establishing a precedent for investor rights protection in asset management disputes [1][3][8]. Group 1: Case Details - In March 2017, a certain contractual fund was registered with the China Securities Investment Fund Industry Association, and in April, the investor transferred 1 million yuan to the fund's special account [2]. - The fund manager failed to ensure timely repayment to the investor due to a default by the investment target company, leading to the investor suing for compensation [2][3]. - The court found that the fund manager did not conduct thorough due diligence, failing to verify the performance of cooperation agreements, which constituted a breach of their duty of care [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The court's decision to hold the fund manager liable for 40% of the losses included both the principal investment and interest losses due to fund occupation [3]. - The ruling introduced a "six-step review method" for judicial recognition of the fund manager's due diligence obligations, providing clear guidelines for future cases [3][8]. - The judgment clarified that the investor retains rights in the subsequent liquidation process, with the fund manager's compensation being a precursor to the investor's claims [7][8]. Group 3: Industry Impact - The case highlights the ongoing issues in asset management disputes, particularly regarding the responsibilities of fund managers and the challenges in calculating losses when products are not liquidated [4][5]. - The ruling may influence asset management institutions' handling of underlying assets, as managers may lack motivation to liquidate problematic projects to avoid loss calculations [5][6]. - The decision supports the notion that investors can seek compensation from asset management companies even before the completion of product liquidation, sparking discussions within the industry [8].

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of asset management regulations aims to break the implicit guarantee and promote a responsible investment environment, but issues with asset management products can lead to legal disputes regarding investor protection [1][8]. Group 1: Case Overview - A specific case was highlighted by the Beijing Financial Court, where a fund management company failed to conduct adequate due diligence, leading to an inability to repay an investor [1][5]. - The fund product was registered in March 2017, and the investor transferred 1 million yuan to a dedicated account as per the contract [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court found that the fund management company only investigated the investment situation and did not verify the performance of cooperation agreements with the investment target and downstream partners, indicating a lack of due diligence [5][7]. - The court ruled that the fund management company was 40% liable for the investor's losses, which included the principal and interest on the funds occupied [7]. Group 3: Due Diligence Standards - The core disputes in asset management-related cases revolve around whether the management fulfilled their fiduciary duties, particularly the due diligence obligation [8][10]. - The Beijing Financial Court established a "six-step review method" to assess whether fund managers have fulfilled their due diligence obligations, providing a reference standard for similar cases [11][15].