益康國際面臨"小公司大麻煩"

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.

每個能拼寫出IPO（首次公開發行）或者更好一點Hanergy（漢能）的人，都會知道在中國投資帶有一種當年美國狂野西部(Wild West)的感覺。但並非所有故事都是關於數十億美元股票鉅虧和億萬富翁董事長不辭而別。有時，損失很小，公司鮮爲人知，涉及的人員是在小地方做生意的小人物。然而，不要被假象矇蔽：即使標題很小，但麻煩可能很大。

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.

看一下益康國際(Sorbic international)的案例：這家倫敦上市的中國食品防腐劑企業市值僅150萬英鎊，但其問題大到足以讓任何人在決定到一個公司治理仍深陷清朝水平的國家開展業務之前三思。

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.

總部位於中國沿海的山東省、在倫敦創業板市場——另類投資市場(AIM)掛牌上市的益康國際，本月針對股票被停牌向倫敦證交所（AIM的監管機構）提交了一份最新進展說明。任何仍然認爲中國內地有大量成熟待摘財富的人，都應該讀一下這份說明。

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.

益康國際已解除其中國籍首席執行官職務，並剝奪了其作爲公司在華法人代表的資格。但在中國，解僱從來不是小事，而此次解僱所引發的一團糟局面在中國相當常見，即使在21世紀也是如此。

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.

益康國際向股市披露，公司首席執行官王彥廷“拒絕交出其在被解職前帶離辦公場所的公司印章和營業執照”。

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.

對於在豬扒是尋常餐食選擇（chops，既可指公章也可指豬扒——譯者注）的法律管轄區做生意的任何人來說，這聽起來或許不是什麼大事。但對中國企業來說，公章意味着一切——這就是爲什麼心懷不滿的高管往往竊取印章。有了公章和營業執照，王彥廷就能夠繼續控制公司的銀行賬戶和日常運營。

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.)

益康國際稱，王彥廷利用自己的職權將公司的7000萬元人民幣（合1100萬美元）轉移到了一個他們也不知道的地方。令人擔心的是，該公司還指出，此事雖然已在當地報警，但警方將王彥廷的拒絕合作視爲商業糾紛，因此不願意協助。（益康國際稱，中國有關部門此後已介入此事。）

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?”

並不令人意外的是，王彥廷否認了所有指責。他的律師張英徵向英國《金融時報》表示，他的當事人沒有竊取印章。“公章仍在公司，王彥廷也在公司，所以王彥廷沒拿走公章。他仍在經營公司。沒有公章，他怎麼能經營公司呢？”

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”.

律師稱，他也沒有挪用公司7000萬元人民幣的資金。他說，王彥廷被拖欠了薪資（益康國際對此表示否認），而且公司承諾給他50.1%的股權（益康國際稱這與他們無關，因爲此事涉及“益康國際收購他的企業之前”的事件）。張英徵還體貼地補充說，如果英國《金融時報》未能“準確”報道這起糾紛，“我們將用法律武器起訴你們”。

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.”

不過，法律似乎解決不了“他說/他說”的各執己見的僵局。“這在中國是一個難解之題，如果你想更換一名法人代表，必須由即將去職的法人代表在變更法人代表的文件上‘蓋章’，而如果他拿着公章，那麼你就無法實現變更，”英國會計師、益康國際非執行董事長約翰•麥克萊恩(John McLean)說。“我們的策略是讓他回到談判桌前協商，因爲走司法程序需要很長時間。”

“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諮詢公司中國區負責人肯特•克德爾(Kent Kedl)說：“中國的人力資源法律在很大程度上對僱員有利。它基本上可以讓人們……綁架公司。”“這種情況太普遍了。我們爲客戶處理的勞動爭議問題都與此有相似之處：他們有公章、保險箱鑰匙或密碼之類，”他補充說。這是怎樣的工作保障啊：如果王彥廷繼續拒絕走人，不容易看出益康國際能做什麼。

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，對於那些能夠拼寫出IPO的人，可以讀讀關於漢能的頭條，但也別忘了益康國際這樣的小故事。