今日晚间，振芯科技公告，公司于1月7日收到控股股东成都国腾电子集团有限公司发来的《关于提请成 都振芯科技股份有限公司董事会召集召开2026 年第一次临时股东会的函》等文件。 提请函内容显示，为充分保障振芯科技及全体股东的合法权益，有两项提案在本次拟召开股东会上做出 审议，即《关于董事会提前换届并选举公司第七届董事会非独立董事的议案》（10位候选人中差额选 举）和《关于董事会提前换届并选举公司第七届董事会独立董事的议案》（3位候选人等额选举）。 国腾电子提请召开股东会的理由为，根据相关法律法规，其作为单独持有上市公司 10%以上股份的股 东（持股29.21%），有权提请公司董事会召集并召开股东会。据公开信息，振芯科技现任董事会任期 为2023年7月-2026年7月。 值得关注的是，国腾电子对后续召开股东会的时间节点做出了明确提示：提请公司董事会自本函送达之 日（公司董事会拒不接受的，亦视为送达）起十日内同意召开临时股东会并反馈本公司；在同意召开临 时股东会的董事会决议作出后五日内发出召开公司本次股东会的通知；于发出召开股东会通知第十六日 召开公司本次股东会并及时进行信息披露。 国腾电子补充道，如董事会以任何理由 ...

一则公开信，让萦绕在振芯科技（300101）身上的股东内斗色彩更加浓厚。 证券时报.e公司记者注意到，振芯科技微信公众号12月30日晚发布了一则《致振芯科技全体股东的公开 信》。这份1600多字的公开信由公司董事长谢俊、副董事长徐进、董事柏杰署名，文中多处声讨振芯科 技实际控制人何燕。 在谢俊等人看来，振芯科技的成就是核心管理团队与全体员工取得的，并认为何燕"非但没有为振芯科 技发展做出过任何贡献，反而因其个人问题给振芯科技过去和现在造成巨大障碍。" 上市公司发公开信与实控人交锋 公开信称，自公司成立之日起，何燕从未在公司担任职务、从未参与经营管理。2013年何燕涉及重大案 件并随后获刑，公司立即陷入前所未有困境，从此背负特殊标签与外界质疑，在资本市场远没有体现出 应有的价值。 "针对这一困局，何燕不仅不承担股东应尽的责任和义务，积极化解因自身问题给公司造成的重大负面 影响，反而只以维护自己股东权益的旗号为名，无休止的干扰破坏公司的稳定和正常经营，无端否定公 司董事会决策，连续否决公司股东会多项合法决议，并以各种不实之词向相关部门举报公司二十余 次。"文中表示。 公开信中，谢俊等人还质疑了何燕的国籍等，认为她 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing internal conflict at Mengjie Co., Ltd. has escalated, with board member Chen Jie publicly accusing Chairman Jiang Tianwu of various misconducts, including contract fraud and fund misappropriation, which has raised concerns among minority shareholders [1][3][17]. Group 1: Internal Conflict and Allegations - Chen Jie has publicly accused Jiang Tianwu and Secretary Li Jun of multiple issues, including contract fraud and fund misappropriation, which she claims harm the rights of minority shareholders [3][12]. - Since November, Chen Jie has released six lengthy articles detailing her allegations against the management team, including audio recordings and chat screenshots [3][6]. - Chen Jie has consistently voted against the company's financial reports and other proposals, citing concerns over the authenticity of financial data and fund usage [5][6]. Group 2: Financial Concerns and Mismanagement - Chen Jie raised questions about the reasonableness of certain expenditures, such as the significant increase in terminal construction costs from 40 million to 150 million per store, which she believes lacks justification [6][12]. - The company reported a revenue of 2.463 billion and a net loss of 156 million in 2021, raising alarms about its financial health [6]. - Regulatory scrutiny has increased, with the Hunan Securities Regulatory Bureau issuing corrective measures against Mengjie Co., Ltd. for financial mismanagement and lack of internal controls [7][12]. Group 3: Shareholding and Control Issues - In 2022, Changsha Jinsen invested 385 million to become the largest shareholder of Mengjie Co., Ltd., but has since struggled to gain actual control [1][8]. - The share transfer agreement allowed Changsha Jinsen to hold 19.77% of voting rights, but this control was lost in 2025 when the agreement expired, leading to a fragmented ownership structure [9][11]. - Chen Jie claims that the original agreement was manipulated by Jiang Tianwu to prevent Changsha Jinsen from exercising its shareholder rights, resulting in significant financial losses for the investor [12][13].

Core Points - Sinovac Biotech Ltd. received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq due to the failure to submit its 2024 annual report by the extended deadline of November 11, 2025 [1][3] - The company intends to request a hearing to delay the delisting process, which must be submitted by November 19, 2025, to trigger a 15-day suspension of the delisting process [1][3] - The delay in submitting the annual report is attributed to a change in the auditing firm, with the previous firm resigning on April 15, 2025, leading to the appointment of UHY LLP to assist with the audit and report preparation [1][3] Company Background - Sinovac was founded in 2001 and has undergone several changes in its listing status, moving from OTCBB to AMEX and then to Nasdaq [4] - The company has been embroiled in a control dispute since 2016, with significant conflicts between founder Yin Weidong and co-founder Pan Aihua over management and privatization efforts [5][6] Financial Performance - Sinovac's sales peaked at $19.4 billion in 2021 due to the approval of its CoronaVac vaccine, up from $510.6 million in 2020 [7] - However, the company reported a sales decline of 13.6% year-on-year to $121.3 million in the first half of 2024, with a net loss of $68.6 million [7] - The company has a stable core business with several vaccines on the market, but internal control deficiencies remain unresolved [7]

Core Viewpoint - Sinovac Biotech Ltd. faces delisting from NASDAQ due to failure to submit its 2024 annual report by the extended deadline of November 11, 2025, with plans to appeal the decision [1][2] Group 1: Company Background - Sinovac Biotech was founded in 2001 by Yin Weidong and Pan Aihua, focusing on the research, development, production, and sales of human vaccines [2] - The company went public in the U.S. through a reverse acquisition in 2003 and has since transitioned to NASDAQ [2] Group 2: Control Struggles - The control struggle began in 2016 when the company planned to privatize and return to mainland China, leading to a split between Yin Weidong and Pan Aihua over management [3] - The conflict escalated with extreme actions, including seizing company seals and production facilities, resulting in temporary vaccine production halts [3] - In 2025, the UK Privy Council's ruling led to the replacement of four board members, intensifying the control dispute [3][4] Group 3: Financial Implications - Sinovac announced significant dividend payouts in 2025, including $55 per share and additional special dividends, which are seen as attempts to stabilize shareholder confidence amid ongoing disputes [4] - High dividend payments may limit funds available for R&D and operational expansion, potentially affecting the company's long-term growth [5] - The company's sales peaked at $19.4 billion in 2021 due to the approval of its COVID-19 vaccine, but recent reports indicate a decline in sales to $121.3 million in the first half of 2024, a 13.6% decrease year-over-year [5]

Core Viewpoint - Sinovac Biotech Ltd. faces delisting from NASDAQ due to failure to submit its 2024 annual report by the extended deadline of November 11, 2025, and plans to appeal the decision to delay the delisting process [1][3] Group 1: Delisting and Financial Reporting - The company received a delisting notice from NASDAQ on November 12, 2023, for not submitting the required annual report [1] - Sinovac intends to file an appeal with the NASDAQ hearing committee by November 19, 2023, which will temporarily halt the delisting process for 15 days [1] - The delay in submitting the annual report is attributed to a change in the auditing firm, with the previous auditor resigning on April 15, 2025, and UHY LLP being appointed as the new auditor [1][3] Group 2: Control Struggles - Sinovac has been embroiled in a control struggle for nearly a decade, beginning in 2016 when the founders proposed privatization and return to mainland listing [3][4] - The conflict has involved extreme actions, including seizing company seals and occupying production facilities, leading to temporary disruptions in vaccine production [4] - The UK Judicial Committee's ruling in January 2025 further escalated the control dispute by replacing four board members, intensifying the conflict between factions [4] Group 3: Dividend Strategy and Market Reaction - In 2025, Sinovac announced significant dividend payouts, including a cash dividend of $55 per share and additional special dividends, which have drawn market attention [5] - Experts suggest that while these dividends may boost short-term shareholder confidence, they could limit the company's ability to invest in R&D and operational expansion in the long term [5] Group 4: Financial Performance - Sinovac's sales surged to $19.4 billion in 2021 due to the approval of its COVID-19 vaccine, a significant increase from $510.6 million in 2020 [6] - However, the company reported a 13.6% decline in sales to $121.3 million in the first half of 2024, with a net loss of $68.6 million [6] - As of June 2024, the company had $1.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents, indicating a stable core business despite ongoing internal control deficiencies [6]

Core Viewpoint - The control struggle at ST Luton (300555.SZ) escalated during the shareholders' meeting on November 7, where the former chairman was removed after a heated debate among shareholders, leading to a significant shift in the company's management structure [1][2][5]. Group 1: Shareholder Meeting Events - The shareholders' meeting was initially announced to be postponed by former chairman Qiu Jingwei, citing a board decision, which was met with strong opposition from shareholders including Wu Shichun [1][3]. - After a chaotic exchange, shareholders led by Wu Shichun successfully reconvened the meeting, resulting in the dismissal of Qiu Jingwei and former deputy general manager Fu Xinyue [1][4][5]. - The meeting concluded with three out of twelve proposed resolutions being passed, including the election of Tan Wenshu as a non-independent director and the appointment of Tan as the new chairman [6][8]. Group 2: Background of Control Dispute - The conflict originated in March when Wu Shichun acquired a 7.44% stake in ST Luton through a judicial auction, becoming the largest shareholder [2][9]. - Disagreements arose over the legitimacy of Wu's acquisition agreements, leading to multiple failed attempts to reorganize the board by Wu [9][10]. - The original management accused Wu of violating regulations regarding shareholding and board control, claiming that his actions were not compliant with legal requirements [10][11]. Group 3: Management Changes and Implications - Following the shareholders' meeting, the newly formed board held an emergency meeting to elect Tan Wenshu as chairman and made significant changes to the management team, including the dismissal of three executives [6][7]. - The company faced scrutiny from the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau for non-compliance in financial management, which contributed to the management shake-up [7]. - The original management issued a statement contesting the legitimacy of the shareholders' meeting and the decisions made, claiming procedural violations [8][12].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the intense power struggle at ST Luton (300555.SZ) following a chaotic shareholders' meeting on November 7, where the former chairman was ousted and a new chairman was appointed amidst disputes over the legitimacy of the meeting and the control of the company [3][4][9]. Group 1: Shareholder Meeting Events - The shareholders' meeting on November 7 was initially postponed by former chairman Qiu Jingwei, leading to strong opposition from shareholders including Wu Shichun, resulting in a chaotic scene [3][6]. - After a heated debate, Wu Shichun and other shareholders successfully reconvened the meeting, which led to the dismissal of Qiu Jingwei and former deputy general manager Fu Xinyue, while Tan Wenshu was elected as a non-independent director [3][9]. - The meeting's agenda included 12 proposals, of which only 3 were approved, indicating a significant shift in the company's governance [9][10]. Group 2: Control Struggle Background - The conflict originated in March when Wu Shichun acquired a 7.44% stake in ST Luton through a judicial auction, becoming the largest shareholder [4][12]. - Disagreements arose over whether Wu's acquisition agreement was terminated, leading to multiple failed attempts to reorganize the board by Wu [4][12]. - The power struggle intensified after the board's refusal to approve Wu's proposals, culminating in legal actions initiated by the original management against Wu [14][15]. Group 3: Management Changes and Implications - Following the shareholders' meeting, an emergency board meeting was held where Tan Wenshu was elected as chairman, and several executives were dismissed due to regulatory issues faced by the company [10][11]. - The company faced scrutiny from the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau for non-compliance in financial management, which contributed to the management shake-up [10][11]. - The legitimacy of the shareholders' meeting and the decisions made were contested by the original management, who claimed the meeting was improperly convened [11][12]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The outcome of the recent shareholders' meeting and board changes may determine the future direction of ST Luton and its governance structure [18]. - The ongoing disputes and legal challenges suggest that the control struggle may not be resolved quickly, and further developments are anticipated [18].

Core Viewpoint - The recent shareholder meeting and board decisions at ST Luton (300555.SZ) have led to significant changes in control, with the original chairman being removed and a new chairman appointed amid ongoing disputes between shareholders [1][5][8]. Group 1: Shareholder Meeting Developments - The shareholder meeting on November 7 was initially postponed by the original chairman, Qiu Jingwei, which faced strong opposition from shareholders including Wu Shichun, leading to a chaotic scene [1][3]. - After a heated debate, Wu Shichun and other shareholders successfully reconvened the meeting, resulting in the dismissal of Qiu Jingwei and former deputy general manager Fu Xinyue, while Wu's nominee, Tan Wenshu, was elected as a non-independent director [1][5]. - The board convened immediately after the meeting to elect Tan Wenshu as the new chairman and made significant changes to the board's committee structure, dismissing three senior executives [5][6]. Group 2: Control Dispute Background - The conflict originated in March when Wu Shichun acquired a 7.44% stake in ST Luton through a judicial auction, becoming the largest shareholder, which led to disagreements over the validity of his acquisition agreements [2][8]. - Wu Shichun's attempts to reorganize the board were repeatedly blocked by the original management, escalating tensions between the two parties [2][8]. - The original management, led by Qiu Jingwei, has claimed that Wu's acquisition and subsequent actions were not compliant with regulations, asserting that he must prove the legality of his funding sources and the legitimacy of his agreements [8][11]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Issues - The original management has raised concerns about the legality of Wu Shichun's actions, including allegations of unauthorized increases in voting rights and failure to disclose necessary information [10][11]. - The board's decision to dismiss the lawsuit against Wu Shichun was based on the conclusion that the agreements related to share transfers did not meet regulatory requirements and were therefore invalid [12]. - The ongoing disputes have led to a complex legal landscape, with both sides asserting their positions regarding the legitimacy of the shareholder meeting and the decisions made therein [7][12].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute regarding the dissolution of Guoteng Electronics, the controlling shareholder of Zhenxin Technology, has seen a recent development with the Sichuan High People's Court rejecting the shareholders' request for a retrial, affirming the company's current governance structure and control [1][3][5]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Sichuan High People's Court has dismissed the retrial application from four shareholders of Guoteng Electronics, confirming the previous ruling that the company should not be dissolved [1][2]. - The legal battle began in February 2018 when the four shareholders filed a lawsuit seeking the dissolution of Guoteng Electronics, which led to a series of court rulings, including a first-instance judgment in September 2018 and a retrial decision in November 2021 [2][4]. - Following the dismissal of the retrial application, the four shareholders expressed their intention to continue pursuing the dissolution based on new facts [3][5]. Group 2: Company Control and Governance - The dispute is rooted in a control struggle over Zhenxin Technology, with the four shareholders claiming that Guoteng Electronics is in a governance deadlock and lacks an actual controller [4][5]. - The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Guoteng Electronics was in a state of deadlock as defined by company law, allowing the company to continue operating under the control of He Yan, who holds a 51% stake [5]. - Despite the court's ruling, the current management of Zhenxin Technology maintains control over the board, leading to conflicts over governance proposals, including a rejected board expansion proposal from Guoteng Electronics [5][6].