Sichuan's securities regulator has ordered corrective measures and issued warning letters to senior executives of Huatu Shanding Design Co. (ticker: 300492.SZ) after finding failures in corporate disclosure and governance. The probe identified two categories of lapses: the company provided nearly RMB 39.3 million in financial support tied to student refunds for an affiliate without prior board review or public disclosure, and it failed to timely disclose roughly RMB 29.6 million in related‑party transactions with another connected entity.
The regulator's review shows that between September 2024 and May 2025 Huatu Shanding financed refunds for students of Beijing Zhongshi Huatu Culture Development Co., amounting to RMB 39,290,800. Separately, transactions with Beijing Huatu Shangxue Education Technology Co. from January to May 2025 totaled RMB 29,585,600. The company did not follow the required internal approval and information‑disclosure procedures, and the board only considered a supplementary confirmation of the related‑party transactions on 29 August 2025.
Under China's Information Disclosure Management Measures, the Sichuan Securities Regulatory Bureau held chairman Wu Zhenggao, CEO Yi Xiaoying, deputy general manager and board secretary Xiao Delun, and CFO Zheng Tianxiang responsible. The regulator imposed an administrative order to rectify the violations, issued warning letters to the named executives, and recorded the action in the securities and futures market integrity database, a record that can carry reputational and compliance consequences.
Separately, a wholly owned subsidiary, Huatu Education Technology Co.'s Daqing branch, was administratively penalised by the Daqing cultural, radio, television and tourism authority for failing to register certain publications and for distributing publications deemed illegal. Authorities confiscated 560 copies of 14 titles of exam‑preparation material and imposed a RMB 27,000 fine. The company declaration in its financial statements identifies Huatu Education Technology as a fully owned subsidiary of Huatu Shanding.
Taken together, the measures illustrate intensifying regulatory scrutiny on disclosure practices and compliance in companies that straddle education services and capital markets. While the monetary amounts involved are modest relative to many listed firms, the enforcement highlights governance weaknesses that regulators in China have been addressing more vigorously since the overhaul of private tutoring rules and broader demands for greater transparency from listed issuers.
For investors and managers, the immediate implications are practical and reputational. The corrective order and public warning letters increase compliance obligations and raise the prospect of heightened oversight on future related‑party dealings. Inclusion in the integrity database can complicate access to regulatory approvals and heighten market sensitivity to any further operational or disclosure missteps by Huatu's group firms.