评论
打印
The Wild West flavour of investing in China will be known to anyone who can spell IPO (or better yet Hanergy). But it’s not all multibillion-dollar stock losses andbillionaire chairmen gone Awol. Sometimes the losses are tiny, the companies obscure and the people involved are nobodies doing business in the middle of nowhere. Don’t let that fool you, though: even if the headline is small, the headache may be huge.
每个能拼写出IPO（首次公开发行）或者更好一点Hanergy（汉能）的人，都会知道在中国投资带有一种当年美国狂野西部(Wild West)的感觉。但并非所有故事都是关于数十亿美元股票巨亏和亿万富翁董事长不辞而别。有时，损失很小，公司鲜为人知，涉及的人员是在小地方做生意的小人物。然而，不要被假象蒙蔽：即使标题很小，但麻烦可能很大。
Consider the case of Sorbic International: a London-listed Chinese food preservatives company with a market capitalisation of only £1.5m but a problem big enough to make anyone think twice about going into business in a country where corporate governance is stuck somewhere back in the Qing dynasty.
看一下益康国际(Sorbic international)的案例：这家伦敦上市的中国食品防腐剂企业市值仅150万英镑，但其问题大到足以让任何人在决定到一个公司治理仍深陷清朝水平的国家开展业务之前三思。
Sorbic, which is based in the coastal province of Shandong but listed on London’s junior Aim exchange, this month gave the London Stock Exchange (Aim’s overseer) an update on the suspension of its shares that should be required reading for anyone who still thinks there is low-hanging wealth ripe for the plucking in the Chinese hinterland.
总部位于中国沿海的山东省、在伦敦创业板市场——另类投资市场(AIM)挂牌上市的益康国际，本月针对股票被停牌向伦敦证交所（AIM的监管机构）提交了一份最新进展说明。任何仍然认为中国内地有大量成熟待摘财富的人，都应该读一下这份说明。
Sorbic has removed its Chinese chief executive from office, and from his position as legal representative of the company in China. But sackings are never simple here — and this one has gone haywire in a way that is all too common, even in the Middle Kingdom of the 21st century.
益康国际已解除其中国籍首席执行官职务，并剥夺了其作为公司在华法人代表的资格。但在中国，解雇从来不是小事，而此次解雇所引发的一团糟局面在中国相当常见，即使在21世纪也是如此。
Wang Yan Ting, the chief executive, “declined to hand over the company’s corporate seals (chops) and business licences, which he removed from the premises before he was dismissed”, Sorbic told the market.
益康国际向股市披露，公司首席执行官王彦廷“拒绝交出其在被解职前带离办公场所的公司印章和营业执照”。
That may not sound like a big deal to anyone doing business in jurisdictions where a chop is a carnivorous meal option. But corporate China is all about chops — which is why “steal the seal” is popular with disgruntled executives. With the chops and the business licences, Mr Wang can continue to control the company’s bank accounts and day-to-day operations.
对于在猪扒是寻常餐食选择（chops，既可指公章也可指猪扒——译者注）的法律管辖区做生意的任何人来说，这听起来或许不是什么大事。但对中国企业来说，公章意味着一切——这就是为什么心怀不满的高管往往窃取印章。有了公章和营业执照，王彦廷就能够继续控制公司的银行账户和日常运营。
Sorbic says Mr Wang has used his power to transfer Rmb70m ($11m) of the company’s money to, well, they know not where. Worryingly, the company also pointed out that this had been brought to the attention of the local police, who “deemed Mr Wang’s non co-operation as a commercial matter and were therefore unwilling to assist”. (Sorbic says the Chinese authorities have since become involved.)
益康国际称，王彦廷利用自己的职权将公司的7000万元人民币（合1100万美元）转移到了一个他们也不知道的地方。令人担心的是，该公司还指出，此事虽然已在当地报警，但警方将王彦廷的拒绝合作视为商业纠纷，因此不愿意协助。（益康国际称，中国有关部门此后已介入此事。）
Not surprisingly, Mr Wang disputes all this. Zhang Yingzheng, his lawyer, told the Financial Times his client did not steal the seals. “The chops are still at the company and Mr Wang is also at the company, so Mr Wang did not take the chops. He is still operating the company. How could he operate the company without the chops?”
并不令人意外的是，王彦廷否认了所有指责。他的律师张英征向英国《金融时报》表示，他的当事人没有窃取印章。“公章仍在公司，王彦廷也在公司，所以王彦廷没拿走公章。他仍在经营公司。没有公章，他怎么能经营公司呢？”
Nor did he divert Rmb70m in company funds, says the lawyer: Mr Wang is owed back pay, he says (an allegation Sorbic denies), and he was promised a 50.1 per cent share in the company (which Sorbic says is nothing to do with them as it relates to events “before Sorbic’s acquisition of his business”). Mr Zhang helpfully added that, should the FT not print an “accurate” version of the dispute, “we will sue you, using the weapon of the law”.
律师称，他也没有挪用公司7000万元人民币的资金。他说，王彦廷被拖欠了薪资（益康国际对此表示否认），而且公司承诺给他50.1%的股权（益康国际称这与他们无关，因为此事涉及“益康国际收购他的企业之前”的事件）。张英征还体贴地补充说，如果英国《金融时报》未能“准确”报道这起纠纷，“我们将用法律武器起诉你们”。
It seems the law won’t have much of a look-in resolving the he-said he-said, though. “It’s a conundrum in China, that if you want to replace a legal rep, the change in legal rep document has to be ‘chopped’ by the outgoing legal rep, and if he takes the chops then you can’t make the change,” says John McLean, a UK accountant who is Sorbic’s non-executive chairman. “Our approach is to get him to the table to negotiate because the legal system takes a long time.”
不过，法律似乎解决不了“他说/他说”的各执己见的僵局。“这在中国是一个难解之题，如果你想更换一名法人代表，必须由即将去职的法人代表在变更法人代表的文件上‘盖章’，而如果他拿着公章，那么你就无法实现变更，”英国会计师、益康国际非执行董事长约翰•麦克莱恩(John McLean)说。“我们的策略是让他回到谈判桌前协商，因为走司法程序需要很长时间。”
“The HR law in China greatly favours the employee. It can enable people basically to . . . hold the company hostage,” says Kent Kedl, head of the Control Risks consultancy in China. “Situations like this are way too common. Any labour dispute issue that we handle for clients has something similar to this: they have the chops, the keys to the safe or password or whatever,” he adds. Talk about job security: it’s not easy to see what Sorbic can do if Mr Wang continues refusing to step down.
Control Risks咨询公司中国区负责人肯特•克德尔(Kent Kedl)说：“中国的人力资源法律在很大程度上对雇员有利。它基本上可以让人们……绑架公司。”“这种情况太普遍了。我们为客户处理的劳动争议问题都与此有相似之处：他们有公章、保险箱钥匙或密码之类，”他补充说。这是怎样的工作保障啊：如果王彦廷继续拒绝走人，不容易看出益康国际能做什么。
So those of you who can spell IPO: by all means, read the Hanergy headlines — but don’t forget the Sorbic small print.
所以，对于那些能够拼写出IPO的人，可以读读关于汉能的头条，但也别忘了益康国际这样的小故事。
