博納影業(yè)退市在開曼引發(fā)訴訟

Earlier this month, the Cayman Islands Grand Court granted a petition on behalf of three funds managed by Hong Kong-based Maso Capital to have Chinese movie distributor Bona Film liquidated.

2月，開曼群島大法院(Cayman Islands Grand Court)批準了一項申訴書，申訴者為香港Maso Capital管理的3家基金，它們要求將中國電影發(fā)行集團博納影業(yè)(Bona Film)清盤。

Bona Film is one of a group of previously US-listed Chinese companies locked in bitter legal struggles in the Cayman Islands over the valuation at which they were taken private.

博納影業(yè)以前曾在美國上市，但在開曼群島因私有化時的估值陷入激烈的法律爭議，類似的公司并非博納一家。

The buyout of Bona in April last year led by its chairman Yu Yong with several of China’s most powerful investors, including Alibaba and Tencent, valued the company at about $880m. But Maso, which had a stake in the company through its funds, believes Bona should have been worth more than four times that, according to people familiar with the claims.

去年4月，博納董事長于冬與中國最有實力的幾家投資人(包括阿里巴巴(Alibaba)和騰訊(Tencent))發(fā)起的私有化，對該公司的估值約為8.80億美元。但據(jù)熟悉這樁訴訟的人士稱，通過旗下基金持股博納的Maso認為，博納的估值本應(yīng)是這個數(shù)字的4倍以上。

Bona Film is not an isolated example. There are seven other companies facing Caymans lawsuits from hedge funds that believe they have been taken private at levels far below fair value. Funds such as Maso claim that these companies have been bought with the intention to relist them in China at a much higher price and are seeking to use the Cayman Island courts to compel the companies to pay more to former minority shareholders.

博納影業(yè)并非個案。還有其他幾家公司也在開曼遭遇對沖基金的起訴，這些基金認為，這些公司私有化時的估值遠遠低于公允價值。Maso等基金聲稱，這些公司私有化的目的是要在中國國內(nèi)以更高價格重新上市，這些基金正試圖利用開曼群島法庭迫使這些公司向以前的少數(shù)股東支付更多。

These funds point to companies that have delisted in the US only to re-emerge on Chinese exchanges — including Focus Media, Giant Interactive and Perfect World — at valuations three to five times higher than the price at which they went private.

這些基金把矛頭指向那些在美國退市、而后以3到5倍于私有化估值的股價在中國國內(nèi)證交所重新上市的公司，包括分眾傳媒(Focus Media)、巨人網(wǎng)絡(luò)(Giant Interactive)和完美世界(Perfect World)。

Maso and its lawyers are seeking a winding up of Bona because they believe it “has made a conscious decision to attempt to put assets out of the reach of the company such that any judgment obtained by petitioners would be worthless”, their petition states. ?

Maso及其律師的起訴書上寫道，他們試圖清算博納的原因是，他們認為，博納“有意做出決定，試圖讓該公司接觸不到資產(chǎn)，這樣起訴者獲得的任何法庭裁決都將是無意義的”。

Bona is expected to appeal. “There are a lot of moving parts,” says one person involved in the case. The lawyer from Harneys representing Bona and a lawyer for Maso declined to comment.

預(yù)計博納將提出上訴。據(jù)一位涉及此案的人士稱：“變數(shù)很多，很復雜。”代表博納的來自衡力斯(Harneys)的律師和代表Maso的一位律師拒絕置評。

Documents seen by the Financial Times from a Chinese investment group aiming to raise money from investors wishing to join Bona’s take-private were upbeat. They state that “after its shares have been relisted on the A share market, it is highly possible that the market value will increase significantly”, suggesting Bona was likely to be worth as much as six times that $880m.

英國《金融時報》從一家中國投資集團那里看到的文件則是一副樂觀的措辭，該集團試圖從希望參與博納私有化的投資者那里籌資。文件聲稱，“博納在中國A股市場重新上市后，市場估值極有可能大幅飆升”，這暗示，博納的估值可能最高達到8.80億美元的6倍。

But the proxy Bona filed with the SEC about its decision to go private was far more gloomy. It cited “the substantial uncertainty in the nature of the company’s business and rising costs and increasing competition [as well as] a slowdown of the overall economy and the depreciation of the renminbi [as contributing to] a significant negative effect on the valuation of the company”. By going private, “management can improve results without the pressures exerted by the public market”, the document added.

然而，博納向美國證交會(SEC)提交的有關(guān)其私有化決定的文件要悲觀的多。這份文件指出“該公司業(yè)務(wù)具有不確定性巨大的特點、成本上升和競爭加劇(以及)總體經(jīng)濟放緩和人民幣貶值(會)對該公司估值產(chǎn)生巨大負面效應(yīng)”。文件補充稱，通過私有化，“管理層可以在免受公開市場施加壓力的情況下改善業(yè)績”。

Take-privates are a big market. There were 21 de-listings of Chinese companies in the US with a total deal value of $27bn in 2015, and another 16 worth $6.4bn in 2016, according to Dealogic. Such cases have done little to give reassurance about corporate governance — and the noise around existing disputes is set to intensify in coming months.

私有化是一個巨大的市場。根據(jù)Dealogic的數(shù)據(jù)，2015年，共有21家中國公司從美國退市，總規(guī)模達270億美元;2016年又有16家公司退市，規(guī)模為64億美元。這些案例無助于讓人們對公司治理放心，同時，圍繞現(xiàn)有糾紛的爭議預(yù)計將在未來幾個月升溫。

The list of deals facing challenges in the Caymans — where Chinese companies have preferred to be incorporated because the law there allows controlling shareholders to vote on delisting proposals — includes Qihoo 360 Technology, E-Commerce China, E-House, Homeinns Hotel and Shanda Games. ?

在開曼群島遭遇訴訟的交易名單包括奇虎360科技(Qihoo 360 Technology)、當當(E-Commerce China)、易居(E-House)、如家(Homeinns Hotel)和盛大游戲(Shanda Games)。中國公司青睞在開曼群島注冊公司，因為該地的法律允許控股股東就退市提議投票。

Internet security firm Qihoo 360, for example, was taken private at a valuation of about $9.3bn. Marketing materials from the fundraising “for the privatisation of Qihoo 360 and return of A shares” seen by the FT state that the return to investors assuming an exit in 2019 “may be as high as 5 [times]” and contain ambitious estimates of future net income and other performance metrics going out to 2019. Minority shareholders, though, say that conversations with Qihoo 360 and its advisers before privatisation suggested that the company’s prospects were not nearly that bright. A spokesperson for Qihoo 360 declined to respond to several email queries.

例如，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)安全公司奇虎360私有化估值大約為93億美元。英國《金融時報》看到的“為奇虎360私有化和回歸A股”融資的營銷資料稱，假設(shè)2019年退市，投資者回報率“可能最高達5倍”，而且對截至2019年的未來凈利潤和其他業(yè)績指標給出了極為樂觀的估計。然而少數(shù)股東表示，在私有化之前與奇虎360及其顧問的談話傳遞出來的信息是，該公司的前景遠非那么光明。奇虎360的發(fā)言人拒絕就多次電郵問詢做出回應(yīng)。

One reason that virtually any company listing in China immediately soars is that money is being forced to stay home, and there are few attractive investment alternatives. But Chinese companies need to have a consistent message for investors no matter where they are.

幾乎所有在中國上市的公司的估值都會立即飆升，其中一個原因是資金被迫留在國內(nèi)，幾乎沒有其他頗具吸引力的投資選擇。但不管身在何處，中國公司都需要向投資者傳達一致的信息。