11月20日晚间，闻泰科技在其微信公众号发布关于荷兰经济部暂停行政令的声明。 声明称，闻泰科技作为股东的完整权利以及对安世的合法控制权必须得到恢复。荷兰经济部暂停行政令的举动虽走出了妥 善解决问题的第一步，但绝不是本次事件的解决方案。公司敦促荷兰经济部正视本次事件的本质，尽快、彻底纠正其错 误，其不仅应当永久性撤销其基于《货物可用性法案》发布的行政令，撤回其对企业法庭的参与及支持，还应当确保中方 股东的合法控制权及中方人员的合法权利得到恢复，将安世恢复至2025年9月29日之前的状态。 公司坚决要求，任何真正的解决方案，都必须以恢复闻泰科技作为股东的完整权利以及对安世的合法控制权为基础。闻泰 科技绝不会接受任何将非法结果"合法化"的企图，也不会接受一个由非法程序制造的安世公司股权及治理"新常态"。公司 将采取一切法律手段，最大限度维护公司及全体股东的合法权益。 据新华社消息，荷兰经济大臣卡雷曼斯19日发表声明，宣布暂停针对安世半导体的行政令。 11月19日晚间，闻泰科技发布公告称，虽然上述部长令（Order）被宣布暂停，但2025年10月7日（荷兰时间）企业法庭裁 决依旧处于生效状态，其效力并未受暂停的部长令 ...

【导读】闻泰科技就荷兰经济部暂停行政令发布声明 中国基金报记者 忆山 11月20日晚间，闻泰科技发布关于荷兰经济部暂停行政令的声明称，荷兰经济事务与气候政 策部（以下简称荷兰经济部）有义务彻底、全面解决安世半导体问题，闻泰科技作为股东的 完整权利以及对安世的合法控制权必须得到恢复。 安世半导体去年收入规模约为147亿元。闻泰科技曾表示，若安世控制权在2025年末前无法 恢复，公司可能面临收入、利润及现金流阶段性下调风险。 截至11月20日收盘，闻泰科技报42.65元/股，总市值为531亿元。 在最新声明中，闻泰科技表示，公司注意到荷兰经济部大臣在2025年11月19日发表的"暂停 实施其于2025年9月30日依据《货物可用性法案》对安世下达的行政令"的声明。需要澄清和 声明的是，行政令虽被宣布暂停，但荷兰阿姆斯特丹上诉法院企业法庭（以下简称企业法 庭）作出的紧急措施并未取消，中方股东和人员合法权益所受到的限制和侵害仍在持续进行 中。 闻泰科技指出，荷兰经济部仅宣布暂停行政令，回避了在其推动下的企业法庭剥夺闻泰科技 对安世控制权的错误裁决，未能触及问题解决的关键所在。 闻泰科技表示，2025年9月30日发布的行 ...

10月20日晚间，闻泰科技就荷兰经济事务与气候政策部大臣于2025年11月19日发表的关于"暂停实施其于2025年9月30日依据《货物可用性法案》 对安世半导体（安世）下达的行政令"的声明，作出正式回应。 作为安世半导体的唯一控股股东，闻泰科技对事态发展保持高度关注。其在声明中首先对荷兰经济部暂停行政令的举动表示一定程度的关注，并 衷心感谢中国商务部在推动中荷磋商、寻求问题解决过程中所付出的巨大努力。闻泰科技认为，荷兰经济部的这一表态是"向妥善解决问题方向迈 出的第一步"，并指出此举本身也说明了其先前行政令的"非法性和不当性"。 二、荷兰经济部有义务彻底、全面解决安世半导体问题 2025年9月30日发布的行政令仅是荷兰政府一系列行为的开端。在行政令发布后，荷兰经济部亲自下场参与安世半导体部分欧洲管理层启动的企业 法庭程序，主张自身为利害关系方，深度参与乃至主导整个程序。2025年10月1日，荷兰经济部向企业法庭提交支持函；2025年10月6日，荷兰经 济部向企业法庭提交支持性辩护陈述，并派律师出席听证会，明确表示其无法确定安世是否会遵守此前的行政令，因此呼吁"企业法庭的快速干预 可避免该局面发生"。在荷兰经济 ...

Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit initiated by Singapore's sovereign fund GIC against NIO for "securities fraud" centers around the control and financial boundaries of the company, rather than the technology or products themselves [1][2][5]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - GIC accuses NIO of concealing its substantial control over its battery company, NIO Power, through the Battery as a Service (BaaS) model and complex corporate structures, leading to inflated revenue figures that misled investors [3][4]. - The lawsuit follows previous allegations from a short-selling report by a well-known firm in 2022 and a collective lawsuit from investors that year [4][31]. Group 2: Control and Financial Reporting - The core of the dispute lies in the definition of control, particularly regarding the BaaS model and whether NIO should consolidate NIO Power's financials into its own [6][9]. - GIC argues that NIO maintains effective control over NIO Power despite a minority ownership stake, which should necessitate financial consolidation under accounting rules [8][28]. Group 3: BaaS Model Analysis - The BaaS model allows NIO to sell battery assets to NIO Power, which then rents them to vehicle owners, reducing NIO's asset burden and improving financial metrics [11][12]. - This model aims to attract capital, lower vehicle costs for consumers, and enhance user retention, while also providing NIO Power with a steady cash flow [12][13]. Group 4: Accounting Standards and Implications - The lawsuit highlights the clash between GIC's interpretation of control under US GAAP and NIO's business structure, particularly regarding the treatment of variable interest entities (VIE) [24][25]. - The determination of whether NIO is the primary beneficiary of NIO Power hinges on who has decision-making authority and who bears the economic risks and rewards [26][27]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The outcome of this case could reshape how asset divestiture and financing structures are designed in capital-intensive industries, as well as how auditors and regulators define "substantial control" [33][34]. - The case serves as a reference point for understanding the complexities of financial reporting and corporate governance in innovative business models like BaaS [33].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing controversies surrounding Wahaha Group under the leadership of Zong Fuli, particularly focusing on the allegations of asset hollowing and the control of the company's profits by the Zong family through various shadow companies [1][2]. Group 1: Financial Analysis - As of the end of 2022, the total assets of the domestic "Wahaha system" (including external companies) amounted to 37.047 billion yuan, with an operating income of 51.202 billion yuan, operating profit of 6.148 billion yuan, and net profit of 4.767 billion yuan [1]. - In contrast, Wahaha Group (and its 16 directly invested subsidiaries) had total assets of 5.807 billion yuan, with an operating income of 1.403 billion yuan, operating profit of 73.078 million yuan, and net profit of 18.7128 million yuan [1]. - The state-owned assets in Wahaha Group accounted for only 15.67% of the total assets of the "Wahaha system," with operating income and net profit contributions of merely 2.74% and 0.39%, respectively [1]. Group 2: Ownership Structure - The ownership structure of Wahaha Group is clear, with Hangzhou Shangcheng Wen Shang Lv Investment Holding Group Co., Ltd. (state-owned) holding 46%, Zong Fuli inheriting 29.4%, and the employee shareholding meeting holding 24.6% [2]. - The state-owned entity has reported zero investment returns from Wahaha Group from 2021 to 2023, with a book value of only 242 million yuan [2]. Group 3: Corporate Governance and Control - Zong Fuli controls most of the subsidiaries under the "Wahaha system," which are the primary sources of profit for the brand, while Wahaha Group itself has limited influence over the broader commercial empire [1][2]. - The complex ownership structure of the subsidiaries, such as Hong'an Wahaha Beverage Co., Ltd., indicates that Zong Fuli has significant control over these entities, which are crucial for Wahaha's product lines [4][5]. Group 4: Brand and Asset Management - The control of the "Wahaha" brand assets, which includes 387 trademarks, remains with Wahaha Group, but there are ongoing efforts to transfer these trademarks, potentially consolidating Zong Fuli's control over the brand [19][21]. - The estimated value of the "Wahaha" brand is approximately 91.187 billion yuan, highlighting its significance in the company's overall valuation [19]. Group 5: Future Prospects - Zong Fuli's consolidation of power and control over Wahaha may be aimed at preparing the company for a potential public listing, a shift from her father's previous stance against going public [24][25]. - The challenges Zong Fuli faces include modernizing the company's management structure and addressing internal and external pressures, particularly in light of changing consumer preferences and market dynamics [28].

Core Viewpoint - The key issue is the resolution of the control rights of Wahaha Group amidst a family inheritance dispute following the death of its founder, Zong Qinghou [1][10]. Group 1: Inheritance Dispute - Zong Qinghou's daughter, Zong Fuli, is being sued by three alleged half-siblings for control over assets and a $2.1 billion trust promised by their father [5][19]. - The three claimants are Zong Jichang, Zong Jieli, and Zong Jisheng, with allegations that their mother is a former senior employee of Wahaha [6][10]. - The inheritance battle has revealed complexities in Zong Qinghou's family structure, including non-marital children and potential asset mismanagement [4][9]. Group 2: Trust and Asset Management - Zong Qinghou established three independent trusts at HSBC, each worth $700 million, for his overseas children, which complicates the inheritance claims [17][35]. - As of May, the HSBC account reportedly holds $1.8 billion, down from the promised $2.1 billion, raising concerns about asset management by Zong Fuli [19][35]. - Legal disputes are centered around the validity of Zong Qinghou's wills and the management rights of the trusts, with potential implications for Wahaha's corporate governance [33][36]. Group 3: Corporate Governance and Future Outlook - The ongoing disputes have led to operational challenges for Wahaha, including factory shutdowns and management restructuring [10][28]. - Zong Fuli's leadership is questioned, with reports suggesting her father had reservations about her management capabilities [28][39]. - The resolution of these disputes is critical for Wahaha's stability and future, as unresolved control issues may deter business operations and investor confidence [36][39].