The trading suspension for *ST Supezet (Shanghai Supezet Engineering Technology Corp.,Ltd.) (SH: 688121) has been lifted after two months due to its failure to publish its 2025 annual report on time, and the stock has now been placed under delisting risk warning. On the first day of resumed trading, the stock price hit the 20% daily limit down, with liquidity nearly evaporating. By the close of July 8th, the stock continued its limit-down streak, closing at 4.14 yuan per share. On July 9th, it plunged another 19.57%, closing at 3.33 yuan. On an adjusted basis, the share price has collapsed by over 90% from its historical peak of 48.26 yuan to below 4 yuan.

This incident marks not just another A-share company being flagged for failing to produce its annual report, but also sets an unenviable record—it is the first company listed on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board to face delisting risk specifically due to an inability to disclose its annual report within the statutory period.

The Initial Hurdle: Three Independent Directors Unanimously Reject

The immediate trigger for this crisis dates back to April 28, 2026. That evening, Supezet issued a major risk warning announcement. During a meeting of the board's audit committee held that day, all three attending members voted against the company's 2025 annual report and its summary, preventing the report from proceeding to the full board for review.

The three independent directors cited three core issues for their opposition. First, they raised significant doubts regarding related-party transactions, questioning the authenticity and fairness of these transactions and the commercial substance of certain business activities in the 2025 financial statements. Notably, the company's estimated total for 2025 routine related-party transactions was 55 million yuan, a sharp increase of 54.11 million yuan from the actual figure of 890,000 yuan in the previous year.

Second, the impact of an ongoing investigation remains unclear. The company and its actual controller were placed under investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission in December 2025, and the independent directors stated they could not assess the impact of this matter on the company's going concern status or the potential legal risks involved.

Third, a crucial third-party verification report was missing. The audit committee had previously requested the company hire an independent intermediary to verify key transactions, but by the time of the annual report review, this report had still not been issued.

According to relevant regulations, a periodic report must be approved by more than half of all audit committee members before it can be submitted to the board of directors. The unanimous veto by the three independent directors effectively blocked the annual report at the very first gate.

Long-Standing Issues: From IPO Fund Misuse to Dual Investigations

The crisis at *ST Supezet did not emerge overnight. Looking back, the company's longstanding laxity in information disclosure governance had already laid the groundwork for trouble.

In December 2025, the company received an administrative regulatory decision from the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau. The investigation found that between 2021 and 2024, during the implementation of its IPO-funded projects, the company improperly diverted portions of the raised capital. These funds flowed through accounts controlled by the actual controller into an off-balance-sheet pool, with some returning to the company and some going to related enterprises, and the related-party fund flows and use of proceeds were not truthfully disclosed. Following the disclosure of its 2022 and 2024 annual reports, the company had previously received detailed follow-up inquiries from the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

On December 20th of the same year, the CSRC decided to initiate an investigation into the company and its actual controller, Zhang Jinhong, for suspected violations of information disclosure laws and regulations. On May 6, 2026, the company received another CSRC investigation notice for failing to disclose its periodic report on schedule.

Two investigations and one administrative regulatory measure—this "small giant" in petrochemical equipment, which listed in September 2021 raising over 1.5 billion yuan, finds itself deep in a regulatory whirlpool just five years after its IPO.

Over 6,700 Shareholders Trapped

The post-resumption trajectory of *ST Supezet has left investors with almost no opportunity to exit. Even before the suspension, the stock was under heavy pressure, falling over 30% cumulatively across three trading days from April 28th to 30th, with drops of 20% and 16.06% on April 29th and 30th, respectively.

Upon resumption, the stock's trading abbreviation changed from "Supezet" to "*ST Supezet." The daily price fluctuation limit remains at 20%, but during the delisting risk warning period, the cumulative number of shares an investor can buy in a single day must not exceed 500,000. This restriction has further exacerbated the liquidity drought.

Over 6,700 shareholders are caught in this situation. Some investors have expressed helplessness, stating they are completely trapped, unable to execute sell orders even if placed at the limit-down price before the market opens.

Two-Month Countdown: Delisting or Survival?

According to the listing rules for the Sci-Tech Innovation Board, if a listed company fails to disclose its annual report within the statutory period and still has not done so two months after its shares are suspended, it will be placed under delisting risk warning. If it still fails to disclose the report within two months of the warning being imposed, its listing will be directly terminated.

This means *ST Supezet has entered a final two-month window for self-rescue. If it fails to disclose its 2025 annual report, which must be guaranteed as authentic, accurate, and complete by a majority of its directors, within two months from the start of the delisting risk warning, the Shanghai Stock Exchange will decide to terminate its listing.

Simultaneously, the CSRC's investigation is ongoing. If the facts subsequently confirmed by any administrative penalty constitute a major violation triggering mandatory delisting, the company's stock would also face the risk of forced delisting for significant illegality.

For *ST Supezet, the core issue lies in the authenticity of its financials. The collective opposition from the three independent directors has placed the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of the company's financial reports squarely in the spotlight. With the authenticity of related-party transactions unresolved, the investigation conclusion pending, and the third-party verification report absent, it is difficult to imagine how an audit firm could endorse the annual report or how the independent directors could reverse their stance to vote in favor.

In Conclusion

The case of *ST Supezet becoming the first on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board to trigger delisting risk due to a delayed annual report is not just a crisis for a single company. It serves as a practical test of the normalized delisting mechanism under the registration-based IPO system.

When three independent directors collectively cast opposing votes, when past irregularities in IPO fund usage are uncovered one by one, and when the actual controller faces two investigations—the journey of this "petrochemical equipment small giant" to the brink of delisting is no accident. The opportunity for over 6,700 shareholders to vote with their feet has been sealed off by the limit-down boards. The time left for *ST Supezet to save itself is now down to just two months.

For the market, this case sends a clear enough signal: in the era of the registration-based system, the authenticity of information disclosure is the lifeline for listed companies, and the independent directors' power of "veto" is evolving from a procedural design into a tangible deterrent.