Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has introduced a new method for assessing damages in bond false statement liability disputes, utilizing third-party professional institutions and the "bond value comparison method" to deduct losses caused by non-false statement actions [1][2][4] Group 1: Case Background - A rural commercial bank purchased 200 million yuan of medium-term notes issued by a company in the interbank bond market in 2017 [1] - The issuer faced significant financial fraud allegations in 2018, leading to a downgrade of its bond rating from AAA to C and a substantial default by September 2018 [1] - The rural commercial bank claimed that the issuance documents contained significant omissions and misrepresentations, seeking over 232 million yuan in damages from multiple defendants [1] Group 2: Court Findings - The court found that the issuance documents contained significant information disclosure violations, constituting false statements that were material [3] - The third-party professional institution's method for assessing bond losses was deemed fair and reasonable, aligning with bond pricing principles and market characteristics [3] - The court ordered the defendants to collectively pay over 128 million yuan in damages, with liability distributed among them based on their degree of negligence [3] Group 3: Legal and Methodological Innovations - The Shanghai Financial Court previously pioneered the use of third-party institutions for calculating losses from stock investment due to false statements, establishing a replicable judicial experience [4] - This case marks a significant advancement in the methodology for assessing losses from bond false statements, addressing the unique characteristics of bond pricing and market dynamics [4]

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court has publicly ruled on a case involving a rural commercial bank and several other parties regarding false statements in the interbank bond market, marking a significant development in the judicial practice of bond-related disputes in China [1] Group 1: Case Details - The case involves a rural commercial bank as the plaintiff and multiple defendants, including another bank, a financial company, a law firm, an accounting firm, a credit rating agency, a trust company, and a third-party credit company [1] - This case is notable for being the first in China to introduce third-party professional institutions in bond false statement liability disputes [1] Group 2: Legal Innovations - The court explored the application of the "bond value comparison method" and related models to reasonably deduct losses caused by non-false statement behaviors [1]