Connect with us

News

Chinese venture capitalists force failed founders on to debtor blacklist

Published

on

Chinese venture capitalists force failed founders on to debtor blacklist

Chinese venture capitalists are hounding failed founders, pursuing personal assets and adding them to a national debtor blacklist when they fail to pay up, in moves that are throwing the country’s start-up funding ecosystem into crisis.

The hard-nosed tactics by risk capital providers have been facilitated by clauses known as redemption rights, included in nearly all the financing deals struck during China’s boom times.

“My investors verbally promised they wouldn’t enforce them, that they had never enforced them before — and in ’17 and ’18 that was true — no one was enforcing them,” said Neuroo Education founder Wang Ronghui, who now owes investors millions of dollars after her childcare chain stumbled during the pandemic.

While they are relatively rare in US venture investing, Shanghai-based law firm Lifeng Partners estimates that more than 80 per cent of venture and private equity deals in China contain redemption provisions.

They typically require companies, and often their founders as well, to buy back investors’ shares plus interest if certain targets such as an initial public offering timeline, valuation goals or revenue metrics are not met.

Advertisement

“It’s causing huge harm to the venture ecosystem because if a start-up fails, the founder is essentially facing asset seizures and spending restrictions,” said a Hangzhou-based lawyer who has represented several indebted entrepreneurs and asked not to be named. “They can never recover.”

Lifeng, in its recent report on redemption rights, said they had turned entrepreneurship into a “game of unlimited liability”. In 90 per cent of investor lawsuits, the firm said, founders were named as defendants alongside companies, with 10 per cent of the individuals ultimately added to China’s debtor blacklist.

Once blacklisted, it is nearly impossible for individuals to start another business. They are also blocked from a range of economic activities, such as taking planes or high-speed trains, staying in hotels or leaving China. The country lacks a personal bankruptcy law, making it extremely difficult for most to escape the debts.

With Chinese funds and VC firms now struggling to return capital to their outside investors, a growing number have turned to redemption clauses to recoup as much money as possible. Lifeng estimates that 20 per cent of all investor exits in 2021 and 2022 came from companies repurchasing their investors’ shares and that more than 10,000 VC or private equity-backed Chinese groups face redemption issues.

A start-up adviser who did not wish to be named said the situation was perversely incentivising VCs to pursue portfolio companies that were doing well but lacked an immediate path to a sale or an IPO.

Advertisement

“VCs are putting pressure on the start-ups that can pay,” he said. “It’s not venture — it’s debt.”

The number of entrepreneurs caught up by the legal actions continues to grow. They include Wang Ziru, who a decade ago grabbed attention as a brash young founder and raised tens of millions of renminbi for his tech media and review platform Zealer.

By 2021, with traffic waning, Wang left for an executive role at home appliance giant Gree. Then, on August 9 last year, a Shenzhen court hit the 36-year-old with spending restrictions for failing to pay a Zealer investor Rmb34mn ($4.7mn), an amount that had snowballed with interest from the VC’s initial Rmb19mn equity investment, according to a lawyer briefed on the case. Wang lost his job a few days later.

The founder is contesting the judgment and said on social media he was not notified of the lawsuit and that the deal’s redemption provision was not triggered.

Wang Ziru’s spending restriction order from a Shenzhen court

One of China’s most famous entrepreneurs, Luo Yonghao, turned his struggle to repay debts from his failed smartphone start-up Smartisan into a spectacle, eventually hawking enough iPhones and office chairs in online video livestreams to pay off suppliers and remove his name from the debtor blacklist in 2020.

Then some of Smartisan’s investors came demanding Luo pay hundreds of millions more in renminbi to buy back their shares.

Advertisement

“Investment is not a loan,” Luo wrote on the social media platform Weibo in August last year. “When a venture capital deal fails, one must accept the outcome. Those who resort to underhanded tactics against entrepreneurs because they can’t bear the result are, without a doubt, unscrupulous capitalists.”

The cases have filled Chinese courts. Records show Xu Mingqi lost his company and all of his other identifiable assets to investors after his materials group Yeagood failed to meet a promised three-year window for an IPO.

China’s supreme court in 2021 ruled that since his wife Zheng Shaoai had also worked at Yeagood, one investor could seize communal property including the apartment held in her name.

Wang, the 47-year-old childcare chain founder, has even had funds in her health insurance account seized by investors. She said her problems began in 2021, when funds connected to state-backed investor Guangdong Cultural Investment Management demanded their Rmb16mn of shares be repurchased with interest because her start-up had failed to attain a Rmb500mn valuation.

Their lawsuit torpedoed a funding round needed to offset pandemic-related closures of the group’s 36 day care centres, she said. Now, Wang owes about Rmb30mn to the GCIM-affiliated funds, Rmb11mn to banks and potentially more to other investors whose redemption clauses have yet to be triggered.

Advertisement

GCIM did not respond to a request for comment.

“I built my company into an industry leader — I have ability and I have drive — but every path I try to take is a dead end,” said Wang. “An unexpected turn of events has left me permanently and utterly trapped.”

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending