振芯科技七年控制权之争落幕，国腾集团夺5席董事

Core Viewpoint - The long-standing control dispute at Zhenxin Technology has reached a resolution, with the controlling shareholder, Chengdu Guoteng Electronics Group, regaining significant power in the board of directors, but underlying conflicts among shareholders may continue to pose challenges for the company's governance and operational stability [4][5][15]. Group 1: Control and Governance - The board restructuring resulted in a 5:3 seat distribution favoring Guoteng Group, which now holds the majority of decision-making power [7][9]. - The new board includes members with expertise in military aviation and unmanned systems, indicating a strategic shift towards low-altitude economy and drone technology, while still relying on the core business of BeiDou navigation [13][15]. - Despite the board's new composition, the potential for internal conflicts and dual management risks remains, necessitating improved governance mechanisms to prevent operational inefficiencies [5][15]. Group 2: Historical Context and Shareholder Disputes - The control struggle began with the imprisonment of the actual controller, He Yan, in 2016 for financial crimes, leading to a series of lawsuits initiated by other shareholders seeking to dissolve Guoteng Group [4][16]. - After years of litigation, a court ruling in December 2024 confirmed He Yan's control over Zhenxin Technology, allowing her to influence major decisions due to her majority stake in Guoteng Group [16][18]. - The ongoing disputes have resulted in a significant decline in the number of shareholders, with a 17.95% drop in total accounts by the end of Q3 2025 [18]. Group 3: Financial Performance and Compliance Issues - Zhenxin Technology has faced declining revenues and profits, with a reported 6.44% decrease in revenue and a 44.91% drop in net profit in 2024 compared to the previous year [22][24]. - The company’s integrated circuit business, a major revenue source, has seen a 16.58% decline in income, reflecting broader industry challenges [24]. - Compliance concerns have arisen due to violations related to bidding processes, leading to sanctions against a subsidiary, although the company claims the impact on overall operations will be minimal [25].