Core Viewpoint - *ST Xinchao (600777.SH) has filed a rare lawsuit against its auditing firm, Lixin Certified Public Accountants, seeking over 3 million yuan in damages and the retraction of an audit report that expressed an inability to provide an opinion [1][3]. Group 1: Audit Dispute - The lawsuit centers on the audit of overseas oil and gas assets, with Lixin stating it could not obtain sufficient audit evidence, while *ST Xinchao claims it provided complete information [1][8]. - The company is requesting the court to annul Lixin's audit report and internal control audit report, and to refund over 3.5 million yuan in audit fees, along with 300,000 yuan in legal fees, totaling 3.801 million yuan [3][8]. - The audit reports raised concerns regarding the management of oil and gas assets, employee compensation, and royalty calculations, with Lixin unable to verify the accuracy of the reported figures [8][10]. Group 2: Financial Reporting Challenges - The 2024 annual report faced significant delays, attributed to the departure of multiple accounting firms and the need for extensive documentation [2][6]. - The report was eventually disclosed in early July after Lixin took over the audit on March 20, following the resignation of previous auditors due to internal control disagreements [6][7]. Group 3: Control Rights Controversy - *ST Xinchao is currently embroiled in a power struggle, with six minority shareholders planning to convene an extraordinary general meeting to reorganize the management [2][11]. - The management is under pressure to demonstrate its competence in internal controls amid the ongoing audit dispute, which has implications for the company's survival [11][12]. - The company has faced multiple attempts by shareholders to call for a meeting, with disputes over the legality of the self-convened meeting process [12][14]. Group 4: Shareholder Dynamics - In April, a new major shareholder, Yitai B, acquired 34.07 billion shares of *ST Xinchao, representing 50.1% of the total shares, intensifying the control rights conflict [17].

Core Viewpoint - The issuance of a "non-standard" audit report by Lixin Accounting Firm for ST Xinchao (600777) has sparked significant market discussion, raising questions about the professionalism and diligence of the audit process, especially given the conflicting opinions with previous auditors and international firms [1][2]. Group 1: Audit Report Details - Lixin's audit report is the first "non-standard" financial report in ST Xinchao's history and contradicts the opinions of top international audit firms, leading to investor skepticism regarding Lixin's professionalism [2]. - The audit covered a retrospective period of ten years, with ST Xinchao providing detailed asset lists and historical audit reports from its U.S. subsidiary, which consistently received standard unqualified opinions from Forvis Mazars, a top-ranked firm [2][3]. - Discrepancies were noted between the oil well information reported by the U.S. Railway Commission and ST Xinchao's operational data, with the company attributing these differences to variations in data collection methods over the years [3][4]. Group 2: Professionalism and Diligence - Lixin's report highlighted differences in accounts receivable and transaction amounts from customer confirmations, with the discrepancies being minor relative to the total amounts confirmed [4][5]. - The board of ST Xinchao emphasized that the minor discrepancies cited by Lixin were negligible and had already been resolved, questioning the necessity of a non-standard opinion based on these findings [5][6]. - The board also pointed out that Lixin's request for detailed asset records was inconsistent with industry practices in the U.S., where oil and gas assets are typically managed at a broader level [6][7]. Group 3: Market Response and Implications - The board of ST Xinchao called for a better understanding of the differences in industry practices and legal environments between China and the U.S., urging market intermediaries to objectively assess these factors [7]. - Despite the non-standard opinion, investors noted that the audit did not reveal any significant financial deficiencies, alleviating concerns about potential financial fraud and reducing the risk of delisting due to reporting issues [7].