(文/孙梅欣 编辑/张广凯） 10月10日晚间，多家媒体援引知情人士说法，宗馥莉已经于9月12日辞去娃哈哈集团有限公司法人代 表、董事及董事长等相关职务，并已经通过股东会和董事会相关程序， 随后，娃哈哈集团相关人士对观察者网公开表示消息"属实"，确认宗馥莉辞职消息。 自2024年2月25日娃哈哈创始人、原集团董事长宗庆后去世以来，关于娃哈哈的风波不断。在这一年多 的时间里，宗馥莉从接任公司法人，到引发轩然大波的第一次"请辞"消息，再到不久后重新接棒娃哈 哈，事件不断反转。 尤其从今年7月，宗馥莉与宗庆后另外三名子女之间的海外信托诉讼，更将宗氏家族的利益纠葛与矛盾 公开化，直接推至公众面前。而海外巨额资产与非婚生子的存在，也让已故的宗庆后塑造多年的社会形 象"人设"崩塌。 根据财新的报道，宗馥莉此次辞职，是因为商标使用"不合规"，她决定全心经营自己早前公布的品 牌"娃小宗"。 就在今年9月中旬流传出的一份内部通知显示，娃哈哈或从2025年开始启用新品牌"娃小宗"。 从宗庆后去世到宗馥莉今年10月到再度辞任，还不到20个月的时间。但在这段时间里，宗馥莉已经为如 今的决定，陆续进行了多项布局，观察者网对此进行了时间 ...

本文来自微信公众号：匹夫老六说财税，作者：匹夫老六，题图来自：视觉中国 我真觉得有些人心理有点不健康。 刚才看新闻，宗馥莉又辞职了。 加上这两天网上一直说什么，这个被带走了，那个被带走了，虽然后来都辟谣了。 但是不妨碍一些人在那狂欢，跟那玩精神胜利法。 先不讨论宗馥莉为什么辞职，为什么谈不拢，到底谁现在被动。 我倒是想说说，有些网友的心理健康问题。 之前我写《说国有资产流失的，非蠢即坏》，一帮傻子，一直骂我。 我当时特别想好好写写，为什么娃哈哈100%不涉及国有资产流失。 后来我也没写，懒得写，懒得废话，因为有些人真的不是一个健康正常的心态。 就这种事，稍微去查查娃哈哈的历史，看看历史沿革，看看当时的背景，由来，就会知道，压根不涉及 什么国有资产流失。 你说这么多年了，一直在掏空，转移利润，这么多年了，不拿分红。 真当国资傻啊？好欺负啊？真是一点也不了解国资，不了解审计，不知道什么叫上级单位。 任何事都要结合当时的历史情况，结合背景去看，而不是就光看个工商信息。 那些网上的专家，但凡有一点水平，也说不出这么弱智的话来。娃哈哈这事，是个很好的照妖镜，能看 出来，谁真懂，谁水货。 事儿要是纸面这么简单，也就不叫事 ...

剑南春的改制，曾经风波不断，其中最关键的问题，是在这次改制过程中到底有没有造成国有资产流失。 实际上，有关剑南春改制是否造成过国有资产流失这一问题，曾长期受到过各方关注，只是在谜底揭开之前，该问题一直是人们长期探究而不得真相的一道 疑云。 作者︱余在洋 近日，有关剑南春的一则消息引发业界关注——2003年改制为民企且经历过一系列风波后，时隔22年，国资再度回归！这就意味着，在剑南春的牌桌上，重 新洗牌已经在所难免。 根据天眼查的股权变动信息显示，拥有政府背景的绵竹市国有资产事务中心，通过认缴1.37亿元出资额的方式，获得剑南春集团14.51%股权，由此成为公司 第二大股东。 与此同时，四川剑南春（集团）有限责任公司的注册资本也已经从8.08亿元增至约9.46亿元人民币。该增资动作，在9月12日的工商变更中已得到体现，也代 表着国资在剑南春的股东身份从法理上得到了确认。 在改制之初，曾经有颇具影响力的财经媒体，针对改制中的国有资产流失问题，以《尴尬剑南春》为题对此发出过诘问，但背后的真相始终未能浮出水面。 其后，在2012年8月份，剑南春爆发了一场影响深远的"改制风波"——由于职工追索改制权益导致的冲突，引发了 ...

Core Viewpoint - The tragic death of Wang Linpeng, the actual controller and chairman of Juran Zhijia, raises questions about the circumstances surrounding his demise, particularly in relation to the controversial backdoor listing of the company and the subsequent fall of several high-ranking officials in Hubei [1][4][8]. Company Summary - Wang Linpeng, the founder and actual controller of Juran Zhijia, passed away on July 27, 2025, shortly after being released from a three-month detention investigation [1][5]. - Juran Zhijia's backdoor listing through Wuhan Zhongshang in 2019 was marked by significant controversy, including allegations of state asset loss and rapid dilution of state-owned shares [6][8]. - The backdoor listing transaction was valued at 356.5 billion yuan, with Wuhan Zhongshang's market value at only 15 billion yuan at the time, leading to claims of it being one of the most bizarre transactions in Chinese commercial history [6][7]. - Following the listing, Wang Linpeng's companies cashed out approximately 5.2 billion yuan, with Wang personally benefiting close to 5 billion yuan [7]. Industry Context - The backdoor listing of Juran Zhijia has been scrutinized for its implications on state-owned asset management, particularly as multiple Hubei officials involved in the process have since been investigated and removed from their positions due to corruption allegations [8][10][11]. - The performance of Juran Zhijia post-listing has also been questioned, as the company failed to meet its profit commitments, triggering compensation mechanisms that raised further concerns about potential conflicts of interest [7].

Core Viewpoint - The sudden death of Wang Linpeng, the chairman and CEO of Juran Smart Home, raises questions about the company's future and the circumstances surrounding his recent legal troubles [2][3][4]. Group 1: Legal Issues and Company Impact - Wang Linpeng was placed under a detention notice by the Wuhan Municipal Jianghan District Supervisory Committee on April 17, leading to significant market turmoil for Juran Smart Home [6][7]. - Following the detention, Wang's 100% ownership of Juran Smart Home shares (5.97% of total shares) was judicially frozen, causing the company's stock to plummet [8][10]. - After a brief return to his position, Wang's unexpected death occurred just five days later, further complicating the company's situation [11]. Group 2: Controversies and Financial Performance - Wang Linpeng's leadership has been marked by both significant achievements and controversies, including allegations of state asset loss and profit transfer during the company's reverse merger in 2019 [12][13]. - The reverse merger with Wuhan Zhongshang was valued at 35.65 billion, but it faced criticism for the rapid dilution of state-owned shares [12][13]. - Despite revenue growth from approximately 9 billion to 13 billion, the company's net profit has been declining since 2022, raising concerns among investors [16][17]. Group 3: Shareholder Actions and Market Reactions - In June 2023, Wang and his associates began large-scale share reductions, leading to suspicions about his intentions [16][17]. - Juran Holdings, controlled by Wang, sold shares worth approximately 4.7 billion through multiple transactions, further intensifying investor scrutiny [17]. - The company's stock experienced a significant drop following Wang's death, reflecting investor uncertainty about its leadership and future direction [4][11].

没有谁能永远站在巅峰，也没有人能逃避风暴。 汪林朋曾缔造了一段商业传奇。1997年，实行了近半个世纪的福利分房制度彻底终结，带动中国房地产 相关行业进入长达十余年的高速发展期。两年后，30出头的国企干部汪林朋被外派到北京居然之家，正 式进入家居流通业。 2001年，国企改制盛行，汪林朋主导完成了对北京居然之家的改制工作，斥资455.89万元成为公司股东 之一。2002年，他倡导的"先行赔付"策略打破了行业潜规则，要求商场对消费者投诉承担连带责任。他 还推动家居卖场从"二房东"升级为"商业运营商"，主导"市场化招商+标准化运营"模式，通过统一收 银、质量检测、物流配送等服务体系，重构行业价值链。 经过一系列变革，居然之家实现了快速增长。到2015年，居然之家已发展成全国性连锁品牌，年营收突 破百亿。汪林朋也被业界誉为"家居零售教父"，获评中国家具行业十大风云人物奖，个人财富达到125 亿元，登上胡润全球富豪榜。 汪林朋擅长资本运作。2015年，汪林朋通过中天基业收购了其余自然人股东持有的股权，从持股不足 9%的自然人股东，最终升级为公司实控人，并于同年注资1亿元成立了居然新零售。 2017年，居然之家启动上市进 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of a rumor regarding the investigation of Wahaha for potential state asset loss over the past 20 years, arguing that such claims are unfounded and driven by malicious intent to create internal conflict and panic within the business community [1][4][36]. Group 1: Allegations and Responses - The article criticizes the spread of unverified claims about Wahaha, emphasizing the irresponsibility of media and individuals who propagate such narratives without proper evidence [3][6][12]. - It asserts that the situation does not involve state asset loss, as the core issue revolves around related party transactions and pricing fairness, which are common in business practices [5][15][21]. Group 2: Economic Context and Business Environment - The author highlights the importance of considering the broader economic context, stating that the success of companies like Wahaha contributes positively to local employment, tax revenue, and foreign investment [18][20][22]. - It is noted that the business ecosystem in cities like Hangzhou and Shenzhen is robust, with a favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship, which counters the narrative of asset loss [25][36]. Group 3: Historical Perspective - The article emphasizes the historical context of the reforms initiated by entrepreneurs during the early stages of market economy development, arguing that these efforts should not be overlooked when assessing current business practices [26][30][32]. - It suggests that labeling successful entrepreneurs as perpetrators of asset loss undermines their contributions to economic growth and development [33][41].

Core Points - The transition of leadership at Wahaha has been marked by significant turmoil following the death of former chairman Zong Qinghou, with Zong Fu Li now at the helm [1][2] - The company is facing operational challenges, including forced employee relocations and production line shutdowns, which have raised concerns about its management and future direction [16][19] - The ambiguity surrounding Wahaha's status as a state-owned or private enterprise has led to ongoing debates about governance and asset management [4][11] Group 1: Leadership Transition - Zong Fu Li officially took over as the legal representative and chairman of Wahaha, indicating a complete leadership change [1] - The company has experienced a rapid decline in public trust and sales following a series of controversies surrounding Zong Fu Li's management style and decisions [2][22] - The leadership transition has been characterized by a stark contrast in management styles between Zong Fu Li and her predecessor, leading to employee dissatisfaction and operational disruptions [21][25] Group 2: Operational Challenges - Many production lines have been shut down since the Spring Festival, affecting approximately 1,500 employees and leading to significant income reductions for workers [16][19] - Employees have expressed confusion and frustration over the company's direction, questioning whether they are working for Wahaha or for Zong Fu Li personally [4][19] - The company has faced criticism for outsourcing production while its own lines remain inactive, raising quality concerns among consumers [16][19] Group 3: Corporate Structure and Governance - Wahaha's ownership structure is complex, with significant stakes held by both state-owned and private entities, leading to confusion about its classification as a state-owned or private enterprise [4][5] - The recent trademark transfer of the "Wahaha" brand has sparked debates about potential state asset losses, with legal implications still under scrutiny [11][13] - The historical context of Wahaha's establishment and its ties to state support complicate its current governance and operational strategies [6][7]

Group 1 - The article discusses the recent management turmoil at Shenzhen Property A (深物业 A), highlighting the resignation of Vice General Manager Chen Hongji due to alleged job-related violations [3][4][6] - Chen Hongji's departure is part of a broader trend of high-level resignations within the company, including the chairman and other board members, raising concerns about stability in a state-owned enterprise [3][4][5] - The company has faced ongoing scrutiny regarding potential fund misappropriation and high guarantees involving related parties, which has led to regulatory inquiries [9][10] Group 2 - Shenzhen Property A has a long history, established in 1982, and is currently controlled by Shenzhen Investment Holdings Co., Ltd., a state-owned entity [5][6] - The company reported a significant decline in financial performance, with a revenue of 2.734 billion yuan in 2024, down 7.79% year-on-year, and a net loss of 1.115 billion yuan, a staggering drop of 340.24% [12] - The company's high debt levels are concerning, with a debt-to-asset ratio of 79.81% and negative cash flow from operating activities for three consecutive years, indicating increasing financial pressure [12][13]

Core Viewpoint - Following the death of former chairman Zong Qinghou, Wahaha Group has undergone significant changes, leading to concerns about its operational integrity and governance structure, with indications of a shift towards a "de-Wahaha" model [1][5][12]. Group 1: Corporate Changes and Governance Issues - Wahaha Group has initiated trademark transfer applications, halted production at multiple processing plants, and engaged in outsourcing production to competitors, raising questions about its brand and product quality [1][5]. - Former executives have indicated that the company is becoming increasingly disconnected from its original identity, with profits being redirected to external entities controlled by management [1][5]. - The group has faced criticism for governance issues, particularly regarding the management of profits and the operational status of its factories, with over 15 plants reported to have ceased operations since Zong's passing [5][10]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Structure - As of the end of 2022, the total assets of the entire "Wahaha system" amounted to 37.047 billion yuan, with revenues of 51.202 billion yuan and net profits of 4.767 billion yuan, while Wahaha Group itself had total assets of only 5.807 billion yuan and revenues of 1.403 billion yuan [11][12]. - The state-owned stake in Wahaha Group represents only 15.67% of the total assets of the "Wahaha system," with revenues and net profits contributing merely 2.74% and 0.39%, respectively [12]. Group 3: Trademark and Brand Management - There have been attempts to transfer the "Wahaha" trademark to companies outside of the group, which could significantly impact the brand's ownership and operational control [15][16]. - The management has sought to establish new brands, such as "Wah Xiaohai" and "Zong Xiaohai," indicating a potential move to further distance itself from the original Wahaha brand [16]. Group 4: Employee Relations and Rights - Employees have raised concerns about their rights and the legitimacy of stock buyback schemes initiated by the employee stockholding committee, which have been criticized for lacking proper governance and transparency [20][21]. - The management's control over the employee stockholding committee has led to significant consolidation of power, raising alarms about the protection of employee interests [21][22].