Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing governance disputes at Sinovac Biotech, highlighting the complexities of shareholder dynamics and legal challenges surrounding board elections and corporate governance [2][7][12]. Group 1: Company Background - Sinovac Biotech, a prominent player in the vaccine industry, has generated over 130 billion yuan in revenue and more than 96 billion yuan in net profit from 2021 to 2022 [4]. - The company is registered in Antigua and Barbuda, a known tax haven, which complicates legal oversight and shareholder rights [5]. Group 2: Governance Disputes - The governance struggle began in 2016 when Sinovac planned to go private, leading to a power struggle between two factions: one led by the founder, Yin Moudong, and the other by investor Li Moxiang [7]. - In 2018, Li's faction gained a majority stake and attempted to replace the board, leading to a protracted legal battle over the legitimacy of board elections and the implementation of a "poison pill" strategy [7][9]. Group 3: Recent Developments - On July 9, 2025, a special shareholder meeting resulted in the removal of Li Moxiang and the election of a new board, with Yin Moudong returning as CEO [12]. - Li Moxiang's faction contested the legality of the new board, claiming that the meeting was improperly conducted, leading to a second round of governance disputes [12][13]. Group 4: Legal and Procedural Issues - The article emphasizes the importance of proper procedures in shareholder meetings, noting that any changes to the agenda or voting rights must be communicated in advance to protect shareholder interests [13][14]. - The legitimacy of the voting rights of two investors, Shangchen Capital and Weiwang Capital, was challenged, with a temporary injunction preventing them from voting during the special meeting [16][17]. Group 5: Implications for Future Governance - The ongoing disputes highlight the need for clarity in corporate governance practices, especially in jurisdictions with complex legal frameworks like Antigua and Barbuda [5][18]. - The article suggests that the resolution of these disputes will have significant implications for shareholder rights and corporate governance standards in China [16][19].