4月18日，ST高鸿（原证券简称：高鸿股份，SZ000851，股价2.36元，市值27.33亿元）披露重大诉讼公告。

Gaohong said that it recently received litigation materials for a total of 9 cases such as the "Complaint" served by the People's Court of Xinbei District, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province. Among them, the amount listed in the claim is about 00 million yuan, and the overdue interest is about 00 million yuan, and the total litigation amount exceeds 0 billion yuan.

Accused of manipulating false trade

The plaintiffs in the 21 cases listed in the announcement of Gaohong shares are Changzhou Shidao Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Changzhou Shidao).

Changzhou Shidao claimed that in 8 years, the third party, Hevita Trading (Changzhou) Co., Ltd. and Changzhou Changjiang International Logistics Co., Ltd., two Changzhou companies (hereinafter collectively referred to as Changzhou Company) respectively signed a "wholesale sales contract" with Beijing Datang Gaohong Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Gaohong Technology), a former subsidiary of Gaohong Co., Ltd., for the purchase and sale of a total of 0 laptop computers, and agreed that Gaohong Technology would purchase ASUS laptops from Changzhou Company, and the total price of the 0 contracts was about 00 million yuan.

At the same time, the third defendant, Nanjing Qingya Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Qingya), respectively signed 21 Wholesale Purchase Contracts with Changzhou Company for the same subject matter mentioned above.

Changzhou Company paid all the contract price to Nanjing Qingya according to the contract, and issued a special VAT invoice to Gaohong Technology, and Gaohong Technology issued a "Certificate of Receipt of Wholesale Goods" to Changzhou Company to confirm that it received all the subject matter of the contract. However, after the expiration of the payment period agreed in the contract, Changzhou Company repeatedly demanded it, and Gaohong Technology failed to fulfill its payment obligations.

Previously, in 1 years and 0 months, Gaohong shares issued a "letter of commitment" to Changzhou company, if Gaohong Technology did not pay all the money on time according to the "wholesale sales contract" involved in the case, Gaohong shares would pay off to Changzhou company.

2022年6月，常州实道与常州公司签订《债权转让协议》，将常州公司享有的《批发销售合同》项下债权全部转让给常州实道。2022年7月，常州公司向高鸿科技、高鸿股份发出《债权转让通知书》，告知前述债权转让事宜。但高鸿科技、高鸿股份至今未履行任何还款义务。

Changzhou Shidao believes that Gaohong Technology, Gaohong Co., Ltd., Nanjing Qingya, Jiangsu Kaixuan Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiangsu Kaixuan), Feng Pengfei and other defendants colluded with each other to deceive Changzhou Company into providing them with financing funds under the guise of a false notebook computer purchase and sales business. As a listed company, Gaohong not only actually controlled the above-mentioned false trade business of Gaohong Technology, but also issued a "Letter of Commitment" to Changzhou Company for Gaohong Technology and Changzhou Company to carry out the above-mentioned false trade business, and confirmed the authenticity of the trade relationship between Gaohong Technology and Changzhou Company in the annual reports of previous years, so that Changzhou Company trusted Gaohong Technology and maintained long-term trade relations with it.

The basic content of the defence has been prepared

According to the announcement of Gaohong shares, according to the relevant evidence currently in the case, Gaohong shares have prepared the basic content of the defense.

"The creditor's rights transferred by Changzhou Shidao are payment claims rather than loan claims, and they are not qualified as the plaintiff in the lending relationship. The creditor's rights transferred by Changzhou Shidao are not legal and valid, and they are not a bona fide third party, and the debtor's claim for performance of the debt as the assignee should not be supported. Gao Hong said.

Gaohong said that it was subjectively unaware of the financing trade called buying and selling, which was actually a loan, and was not a direct participant in the closed-loop idling trade, so it was subjectively not at fault and should not be held liable.

At the same time, Gaohong shares said that the above-mentioned "letter of commitment" is not the true intention of Gaohong shares, it was deceived by Changzhou company, and it did not perform the company's resolution procedures and announcement, and the "letter of commitment" is invalid and Changzhou company knows that it is a malicious counterparty.

"Even if the court finally determines that Gaohong shares need to bear certain liability for compensation, such liability should be differentiated according to the degree of fault of each party, and it should not be ruled that Gaohong shares, Gaohong Technology and Jiangsu Kaixuan should jointly bear supplementary liability, but should clarify the proportion of their respective contributions. Otherwise, it will be a serious injustice to Gaohong shares. Gao Hong said.

In addition, Gaohong said that there is no confusion of personality between the company and Gaohong Technology, and Gaohong does not need to bear joint and several liability. According to the announcement, Gaohong Technology was transferred to the outside world at the end of 2021 and is no longer a subsidiary of Gaohong Co., Ltd.

Regarding the possible impact of this lawsuit, Gaohong said that according to its calculation based on the previous judgment, it is expected to bear the liability of about 230 million yuan.

"After communicating with the annual review agency, the 2024 cases and the 0 cases that have been adjudicated in 0 years belong to the same type of cases, and the facts of the cases are basically the same, so the amount of compensation accrued is included in the 0 years, reducing the profits of 0 years." Gaohong shares said.

National Business Daily