In today's financial market with increasingly stringent regulation, how companies and their management stick to their commitments has become an increasingly important issue. Acting in accordance with the law and managing with integrity have become the focus of attention, particularly among listed companies, where this trend is even more evident.

Recently, the Shanghai Financial Court heard a case of securities tort dispute triggered by the failure of directors, supervisors, and senior management (collectively referred to as "executives") of a listed company to fulfill their commitments to increase stock holdings. This case is the first of its kind since the revision of the Securities Law in 2019 and has attracted market attention. An investor suffered investment losses due to the management's failure to fulfill the commitment to increase holdings and claimed more than 9 million yuan from the listed company and two senior executives, including the difference in investment losses and commission losses. Although the final judgment of the case has not yet been announced, it has significant implications for reminding executives to honor their commitments and respect their basic obligations to investors.

It is worth noting that the state has recently promoted a number of stringent regulatory measures to sever the chain behind dishonest acts that may lead to undue benefits. For example, the newly revised "Company Law" specifies that directors, supervisors, and senior managers have a duty of loyalty to the company, and explicitly states the need to avoid conflicts of interest and not seek undue benefits. Moreover, the CSRC is continuously introducing related norms, including regulations on the reduction of holdings by senior executives of listed companies, all of which highlights the regulators' efforts to protect the health of market operations through ongoing regulation and supervision.

In addition to that, strengthening regulatory and punitive measures to ensure they have strong deterrent power is indispensable. Since the beginning of this year, over fifty listed companies or their executives have been placed under investigation for various illegal activities, highlighting the risks faced by executives and demonstrating a zero-tolerance attitude towards illegal acts. Not only regulatory bodies like the CSRC but also local supervisory committees are beginning to get involved in relevant investigations and oversight, which has been repeatedly mentioned in many listed companies' announcements.

Under the severe penalties of regulatory agencies and courts, some executives who once broke the law have had to face significant liability for damages. In the case of Kangmei Pharmaceutical, for example, former executives had to take joint and several liability for compensation, and there were also situations where the company exercised its right to recourse against the responsible persons. The involvement of supervisory bodies and the impact of high compensations have profound consequences not only for the individuals under investigation but also send a strong signal to the entire market that regulatory efforts are intensifying.

Investors need to further enhance their awareness of rights protection and fully utilize legal channels to safeguard their interests. Currently, the avenues for investor rights protection have become more convenient and efficient. Taking the case of failing to fulfill the commitment to increase holdings as an example, the court implemented a model judgment mechanism, prioritizing the hearing and ruling of representative cases, and using the guiding function of model cases to effectively resolve similar disputes.

Recently, the CSRC announced the ten typical cases of investor protection, with the first case being the Zeda Easy Win fraud issuance special representative litigation. This case, through the special representative litigation mechanism, achieved centralized and efficient resolution of group disputes, reducing the threshold and time cost for investor participation. In the first compensation case of Purple Crystal Storage, by promptly compensating for investor losses and resolving civil disputes at the forefront, it reflects the consistency of legal effects and social effects.

These examples showcase the enhancement in investor rights awareness, the reduction of rights protection costs, the variety and convenience of rights protection channels, and the rightful compensation they deserve. This change has encouraged more investors to join the rights protection ranks. However, the fundamental lack of credibility among some directors, supervisors, and high-level executives of public companies significantly affects the healthy development of the company and harms the interests of small and medium shareholders, thereby damaging the ecological environment of the capital market. To address this, relying solely on enhancing self-discipline and adhering to moral standards is insufficient. More crucially, there is a need to elaborate on regulatory punishment measures, increase the severity of punishments, and form an effective deterrent.

At the same time, investors should also actively use legal means to protect their legitimate rights and interests, and through strict regulatory mechanisms, promote the internalization of self-disciplinary behavior among directors, supervisors, and high-level executives.