Why doesn't Wanfushengke withdraw from the market?

Such eye-catching financial fraud data makes Wanfushengke born to die. Before the case was closed, many people thought that Wanfushengke would become the first GEM company to delist, but the result given by the CSRC was "not touching the delisting conditions", which surprised many people. Then, why doesn't Wanfushengke withdraw from the market? Let's listen to what the legal experts say. Chen, a lawyer of Beijing Law Firm, personally believes that there is nothing wrong with the requirements of the CSRC. In strict accordance with the law, it is stipulated that you can queue up for listing after three years of continuous profit, so you have to lose money for three years before you can enter the delisting procedure. For example, ST and *ST are done in strict accordance with the regulations. Liu Junhai, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China, said that some companies have made false statements, but their ownership structure has not yet reached the delisting conditions, and their operating conditions may be relatively stable. In this case, it is not in the fundamental interests of investors to force a living company to withdraw from the market. However, some legal persons believe that Wanfushengke has the conditions for delisting. From the perspective of Wanfushengke, Zhang, director of Beijing Wentian Law Firm, found that there were too many frauds in his financial statements, and the nature of late reporting was also very serious. Strictly speaking, I think it still meets the delisting criteria. Perhaps the CSRC and the exchange will consider it from other levels and let it continue to be listed and traded with broader standards. The pre-procedure of securities civil compensation affects investors' claims. We know that the damage caused to investors by false statements and financial fraud by listed companies or intermediaries belongs to civil losses. In principle, investors should claim directly from them. If these institutions refuse to bear civil liability, investors have the right to choose to appeal. However, in the capital market, due to the high cost of rights protection and evidence collection, the Supreme People's Court formulated the Provisions on the Trial of Civil Compensation Cases Caused by False Statements in the Securities Market in 2002, and added a pre-procedure in it, that is, investors can only bring a lawsuit to the people's court after the CSRC has imposed administrative penalties on the illegal acts of listed companies and intermediaries. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of this prerequisite? Let's listen to the opinions of experts. Zhang Yuanzhong, director of Beijing Wentian Law Firm, I think it is unreasonable from a scientific point of view. After my investor is damaged, it is my right to sue, so if you set up this pre-procedure, it will inevitably affect the exercise of my right to sue. In fact, after many of our investors are damaged, it is precisely because the CSRC or the court has no relevant ruling or judgment that investors cannot claim compensation, which seriously affects the exercise of investors' right to claim compensation. Liu Junhai, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China, said that it will take time for China's regulatory authorities to strictly implement the administrative punishment duties entrusted by the Securities Law. Sometimes it takes months, sometimes it takes a year or two. During this period, the subject who may bear the responsibility may transfer his own funds or even go abroad. In the end, even if the administrative penalty decision is made, the investor will get a judgment of civil damage, but the defendant lacks the ability to enforce it. However, legal persons also said that due to the strong professionalism of securities civil compensation, a large amount of evidence is in the hands of the defendant. If there is no pre-procedure, it will be very difficult for investors to give evidence in litigation. The case of Chen, a lawyer of Beijing Law Firm, is like a labor dispute case. Medical malpractice cases can only be initiated before litigation. The people's court is not omnipotent, nor is it necessarily 100% professional in all cases. Only after confirmation by professional departments can compensation be made according to relevant confirmation. Without this appraisal, how to compensate? It is still necessary at the judicial level in China today.