In June 2021, Wang completed an investor risk tolerance assessment through A Bank's online mobile application, and the assessment result was aggressive (C5). Wang has previously invested in financial products. On the same day, Wang subscribed to a private equity securities fund product with a risk level of medium at Bank A, but Bank A did not double record Wang during the sales process. Seven months later, Wang planned to redeem the fund product involved in the case, but A Bank's customer manager Lu claimed that the redemption would result in a loss of more than 700000 yuan. He informed Wang that he could not redeem and promised to guarantee principal and interest: "The branch will provide you with another form of... interest not less than 4.5". In September 2022, Lu once again informed Wang that he must wait for my message before redeeming. In the same month, Wang once again expressed to Lu that he wanted to redeem all the shares of the fund products involved in the case, but Lu still said, "It's best not to redeem all of them. In order to repay his own debt, Wang ultimately chose to redeem a portion of the fund shares. In February 2023, Wang reported to the banking and insurance regulatory department that Bank A had engaged in illegal activities during the sale of fund products. On June 21 of the same year, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission issued a response to Wang's report, stating that Bank A had failed to double record (audio and video recordings) during the sales process, and the customer manager had violated the expected returns commitment. The next day, Wang received the reply letter. As of that date, Wang's investment principal loss in the fund products involved in the purchase case was approximately 1.64 million yuan. Later, Wang sued A Bank for investment losses on the grounds that A Bank had made profit commitments.

The first instance court held that as a professional financial institution, the bank had engaged in illegal behaviors such as employees promising to guarantee principal and interest to customers during the fund sales process, resulting in investment losses for Mr. Wang. Bank A clearly had significant fault and should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. For Wang, as an adult with full civil capacity, he has previously invested in financial products and has certain investment experience. Moreover, Wang's assessed risk tolerance level matches the risk level of the fund product he purchased on the same day. Therefore, Wang himself also has certain faults and should bear corresponding responsibilities on his own. Taking into account factors such as the infringement behavior of Bank A and the degree of fault of both parties, the first instance court has decided that Bank A should bear 90% of the compensation liability for Wang's losses, and Wang should bear 10% of the liability on his own. On June 21, 2023, the banking and insurance regulatory department made a determination on A Bank's violation of regulations, and the next day Wang was aware of the infringement. In this situation, Wang's failure to redeem in a timely manner resulted in further expansion of investment losses, which should be borne by himself. Therefore, the first instance court determined that the benchmark date for calculating Wang's investment losses should be June 22, 2023. Regarding interest losses, A Bank employees promised to guarantee principal and income, which violates the relevant provisions of the Securities Investment Fund Law and is therefore invalid. Therefore, the interest loss should be based on the one-year loan market quoted interest rate published by the National Interbank Funding Center as a reference value. Both Mr. Wang and Bank A appealed, but the second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

In September 2021, Company B signed a partnership agreement with Company C, Company D, and Company E regarding the fund, which stipulated that Company C is the general partner, while Company B, Company D, and Company E are the limited partners; Each partner's capital contribution shall be paid within five days from the date of receiving the payment notice from the executing partner; If a partner fails to fulfill their capital contribution obligations, with the unanimous written consent of all partners, a resolution may be passed to expel them; The partners' meeting shall be convened and presided over by the general partner, who shall notify the meeting of the time, place, and matters to be discussed five working days before the meeting is held. C Company issued a "Payment Notice" to B Company in October 2021, notifying B Company to pay the investment funds. Due to B company's failure to make payment on time, C company sent another letter to B company in November 2021, requesting B company to negotiate with them regarding the subsequent payment of investment funds. In January 2024, Company C issued a "Notice of Call for Partnership Capital Contributions" to Company B again, notifying Company B to pay the investment funds within 30 days, otherwise Company B will face legal consequences of expulsion. But Company B has not yet made the payment within the deadline required by the reminder notice. On March 4, 2024, Company C issued a "Notice of the General Meeting of Partners" to convene all partners to review the matter of Company B's expulsion, and noted that Company B should abstain from voting. The fund involved in the later case held a general meeting of partners on March 11, 2024, and with the unanimous agreement of Company C, Company D, and Company E, passed a resolution to expel Company B. However, due to the fact that the custodian of the fund involved in the case does not recognize the unilateral expulsion resolution made by the fund involved in the case, and the "Custody Agreement" stipulates that the investment project transfer instructions must be stamped by the reviewing personnel of Company B, and a partner meeting resolution unanimously agreed upon by all partners for external investment should be submitted at the same time. The "Partnership Agreement" of the fund involved in the case stipulates that the distribution plan of distributable funds must be unanimously agreed upon by all partners, resulting in the fund being unable to use the entrusted fund assets for external investment, distribution of income, and payment of partnership enterprise expenses. The case involves a fund lawsuit to the court, requesting the court to confirm the effectiveness of the delisting resolution.

杨春宝 

 Chambers Yang

合伙人

执业领域：

私募基金和公司、投融资、并购重组，资本市场，TMT，房地产和建筑工程，以及上述领域的争议解决

工作语言：

中文、英文

手机：

+86 13901826830

邮箱:

chambers.yang@dentons.cn

狄朝平

Andy DI

合伙人

执业领域：

并购重组、境内外资本市场、私募基金、外商投资

工作语言：

中文、英文

手机：

+86 13764572801

邮箱：

dichaoping@dentons.cn

孙瑱

Laura Sun

合伙人

执业领域：

私募股权投资、企业并购、电商和劳动法律事务

工作语言：

中文、英文

文嘉伦

Allen Wen

资深律师

执业领域：

公司设立与合规、私募与风险投资、并购与重组、证券与资本市场

工作语言：

中文、英文

郭泽坤

Kevin Guo

资深律师

执业领域：

私募基金、股权投资、争议解决、公司常年法律顾问

工作语言：

中文、英文

蔡珺怡

Ivy Cai

律师

执业领域：

公司设立与合规、私募与风险投资、并购与重组、外商投资

工作语言：

中文、英文

于玲玲

Irene Yu

律师

执业领域：

私募投资、并购重组、新三板挂牌、国有产权交易

工作语言：

中文、英文

陈鑫

Cindy Chen

律师

执业领域：

私募与风险投资、证券与资本市场、外商投资

工作语言：

中文、英文

李嘉欣

律师助理

执业领域：

私募股权投资、企业并购、电商和劳动法律事务

工作语言：

中文、英文