Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange has issued regulatory measures against Minsheng Securities and other involved parties due to violations during the IPO process of Dijia Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd, highlighting issues related to independence, internal controls, and financial disclosures [1][2][8]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange decided to take written warning measures against Minsheng Securities for failing to adequately address independence issues of the issuer [8][20]. - Minsheng Securities' representatives, Bao Jingjing and He Runyong, received public criticism for their inadequate scrutiny of the issuer's independence and internal control issues [22][28]. - The audit firm Tianjian CPA and its signatory accountants, Fei Fanghua and Peng Xianglian, were also criticized for not properly addressing internal control deficiencies [30][36]. Group 2: Issuer's Independence Issues - Dijia Pharmaceutical was found to have independence flaws, as it prioritized purchasing from suppliers controlled by its actual controller, leading to conflicts of interest [3][12][41]. - Employees from the controlling shareholder, Dishan Group, were involved in procurement processes, raising concerns about the independence of the issuer's operations [3][12][41]. - The issuer failed to disclose these independence issues in accordance with the relevant disclosure guidelines [12][41]. Group 3: Internal Control Deficiencies - The issuer's internal controls regarding procurement, sales, and inventory management were found to be inadequate, with missing documentation and improper handling of transactions [4][6][26]. - Significant payments made by Dishan Group and its subsidiaries were not properly verified, leading to questions about the legitimacy of these transactions [4][10][32]. - The issuer's handling of returns related to unsold products was also criticized, as the accounting treatment did not align with actual contractual agreements [19][40]. Group 4: Financial Disclosure Issues - The issuer's financial disclosures were deemed inaccurate, particularly regarding the treatment of returns, which should have impacted the 2020 revenue figures instead of 2019 [19][40]. - The audit and legal representatives failed to provide accurate assessments of the issuer's financial practices, leading to further regulatory scrutiny [30][42][46].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the regulatory actions taken by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange against Diga Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and its associated parties due to various violations during the IPO application process, leading to the termination of their IPO review. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - The Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued three written warning letters and three public criticism decisions on April 30, 2025, against Diga Pharmaceutical and related parties [2][3] - The IPO application for Diga Pharmaceutical was accepted on June 16, 2023, but was terminated on June 12, 2024, due to the withdrawal of the application by the issuer and the sponsor [27] Group 2: Violations Identified - Diga Pharmaceutical and its key executives failed to fully disclose independence flaws and rectification measures, as well as internal control deficiencies related to sales, procurement, and inventory management [4][8] - The sponsor, Minsheng Securities, did not adequately scrutinize the issuer's independence issues and internal control irregularities, leading to inaccurate verification opinions [5][17] - The law firm, Shanghai Zechang, and the accounting firm, Tianjian, also failed to conduct thorough checks on the issuer's independence and internal control issues, resulting in regulatory warnings [19][21] Group 3: Specific Issues - The issuer prioritized purchasing from suppliers controlled by the actual controller, which raised concerns about independence and internal control [8][19] - There were discrepancies in the accounting treatment of returns, with the issuer misclassifying a return as a post-balance sheet adjustment, which should have been reflected in 2020 instead of 2019 [10][24] - The issuer's internal controls were found to be inadequate, with missing documentation and improper handling of sales and inventory management [9][15]