Rule Of Information Disclosure Must Not Be "Deceive".

Jiang Shi Qiang

Tianguang Zhong Mao finally announced "16 days and 01" default. Though late, it may have made a good start for this matter.

In December 9th, under the questioning of the letter from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, the letter of the one day's letter was suspended for a month.

The letter from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange came from December 4th. The wording of this letter of concern from the Shenzhen stock exchange is strict. Your company disclosed that as at December 2, 2019, it only paid interest 6 million 319 thousand and 50 yuan, and the interest was 53 million 680 thousand and 950 yuan not paid in full. My department is highly concerned about this.

The core issue that requires verification and explanation is the "16 day wide 01" bond interest repayment arrangement and whether it constitutes a bond default.

Under the questioning of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, Tian Guang Zhong Mao is obviously unable to evade the key issue of "breach of contract" again.

Tianguang Zhong Mao pointed out that according to the "16 day wide 01" corporate bond prospectus, the company failed to pay the full interest of the bonds in the 30 days after the resale date, which constituted a breach of contract.

However, according to the twenty-first Century economic report reporter's reference to the "16 day wide 01" prospectus, seven points were put forward in connection with the event of default of the bond. The first point is, "when the maturity of this bond is accelerated, the payment is made or repurchased (if applicable), the issuer fails to pay the principal payable at maturity". The second point is Tianguang Zhong Mao's explanation that "the issuer fails to repay the principal and interest of this bond, and the breach has lasted for more than 30 days and has not yet been corrected".

The actual situation is that on the day of the redemption payment, Tian Guang Zhong Mao has not been able to repay the principal and interest on time. However, it did not disclose the announcement of the breach.

The role of word games may be just "hide the ears and steal the bell". We believe that regulators have already answered the question of whether the breach is confirmed or not.

The Shenzhen stock exchange is also concerned about the letter's final warning to Tian Guang Zhong Mao. The listed companies should abide by the laws and regulations of the state, the Listing Rules of the stock market and the guidelines for the standardized operation of the listed companies in the SME board, etc., be honest, trustworthy and standardized, and fulfill the obligation of information disclosure in a serious and timely manner.

In fact, information disclosure has always been the core of the capital market. As bond defaults become more and more intense, the complicated situation behind the "letter playing tricks", such as Tianguang and Zhong Mao, should be noticed.

The timely attention of the regulatory authorities to Tianguang Zhong Mao incident also reflects the bottom line of information disclosure which can not be challenged.

In December 9th, Tianguang Zhong Mao also announced in the announcement that it would fulfill its duty of disclosure in a timely manner and apologize to all the bondholders for breach of contract.

We will wait and see whether the follow-up regulators can handle the information disclosure rules in an open and transparent manner.