On May 23, the Shanghai Stock Exchange issued a decision to give regulatory warning to fulongma and Zhang linlei, the board secretary and deputy general manager.
It was found that on March 15 and March 25, 2022, fulongma disclosed the illegal guarantee and relevant supplementary announcements, saying that on December 22, 2021, the company’s subsidiary Nanning Longma Urban Environmental Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Longma chenghuan) signed a guarantee contract with Jiangsu Financial Leasing Co.Ltd(600901) (hereinafter referred to as Jiangsu Jinzu), It is agreed to provide joint and several liability guarantee for the debt of the financial leasing contract signed between Guangxi Gongtian Environment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangxi Gongtian) and Jiangsu Jinzu, with a guarantee period of 3 years and a guarantee amount of 4.0476 million yuan, accounting for 0.13% of the audited net assets of the company at the end of the previous year. The announcement also showed that the asset liability ratio of the guaranteed party Guangxi Gongtian was 99.14% as of September 30, 2021. The guarantee was made by the legal representative and executive director of Longma chenghuan in the name of Longma chenghuan, and the internal approval decision-making procedures of the company and the review procedures of the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders were not fulfilled. On March 8, 2022, the company released the above illegal guarantee.
If a listed company provides guarantee for a guarantee object with an asset liability ratio of more than 70%, it shall be deliberated by the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders of the company, and timely perform the information disclosure obligation of the interim announcement. However, the above-mentioned guarantee matters of the company have not been deliberated by the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders, and have not been disclosed in time, which violates relevant regulations. Zhang linlei, then deputy general manager and Secretary of the board of directors of the company, as the specific person in charge of the company’s information disclosure affairs, failed to be diligent and responsible for the above violations, violating the relevant provisions and the commitments made in the statement and commitment of directors (supervisors and senior managers).
