Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/arm-china%E2%80%99s-renegade-chief-makes-his-last-stand.15978/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2020970
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Arm China’s renegade chief makes his last stand

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
A very interesting story. I have worked in China for many years and have seen some amazing things but nothing public like this. During the CEO Outlook event last week Simon Segars was listed as an advisor to Arm. When asked about China he laughed and said very little.

Allan Wu Arm China.jpg



High in a Shenzhen office tower, the new chief executive of Arm’s China unit found a six-man security team barring his entrance to the UK chip designer’s offices. But Liu Renchen, glasses pressed to his nose and khakis hiked up to his belly button, was determined to enter and resolve a two-year corporate battle. Gaining control over the renegade Chinese unit is crucial to plans being drawn up by Arm’s owner, Japan’s SoftBank, to list the UK’s biggest technology company.

Last week, Shenzhen officials finally agreed to remove Arm China head Allen Wu, clearing his name from business records and fashioning a new “chop”, or company seal, which authorises official documents and with which Wu has wielded power for nearly two years. Wu has refused to surrender. “Legally we have control, physically, the other side is not putting it on a silver platter,” said a person close to Arm China’s board. “We have to go in and take it.”

This account of the battle for control of Arm China is based on multiple people with direct knowledge of the events. Allen Wu, Arm China, Arm and SoftBank did not respond to requests for comment. The stand-off ended after police descended on Arm’s 24th-floor offices and hauled away two of Wu’s guards. Liu posed for a stiff, unsmiling photo in front of big Chinese characters suspended in the office fountain: Anmou Keji or Arm Technology.
 

hist78

Well-known member
This kind of thing can go on for almost two years is ridiculous. Where is the rule of law?

ARM China is operating in Shanghai (population 28.5 million) and Shenzhen (population 13.8 million). Neither Shanghai nor Shenzhen is a rundown village that such joke should have happened.
 

Xebec

Active member
This kind of thing can go on for almost two years is ridiculous. Where is the rule of law?

ARM China is operating in Shanghai (population 28.5 million) and Shenzhen (population 13.8 million). Neither Shanghai nor Shenzhen is a rundown village that such joke should have happened.
This was honestly starting to feel state sponsored to me…
 

benb

Active member
It's not just China.
Jay Y. Lee, successor to the founder of Samsung, was released from prison last August in order to use the chop to conduct Samsung business that would otherwise have been stalled indefinitely.
The chop was literally his "get out of jail free" card.
Interestingly, according to wikipedia, he retains the title "Vice Chairman" despite not drawing a salary or being registered as an executive in compliance with his work ban.
 

peter

Member
It's not just China.
Jay Y. Lee, successor to the founder of Samsung, was released from prison last August in order to use the chop to conduct Samsung business that would otherwise have been stalled indefinitely.
The chop was literally his "get out of jail free" card.
Interestingly, according to wikipedia, he retains the title "Vice Chairman" despite not drawing a salary or being registered as an executive in compliance with his work ban.
There's much more nuance behind that than what's going on with the ARM China. Lee didn't want to "bribe" Park's administration, Choi Soon-sil strong armed numerous business leaders for them to conduct business as usual. Just like Shin Dong-bin of Lotte group and others. 70% of the people in Korea support the pardoning of Lee Jay-yong. False equivalence on massive proportions, unless you'll also equate that with corporations lobbying in any other country. Then yeah, there's corruption everywhere. 🤷‍♂️
 

tonyget

Member
This kind of thing can go on for almost two years is ridiculous. Where is the rule of law?

ARM China is operating in Shanghai (population 28.5 million) and Shenzhen (population 13.8 million). Neither Shanghai nor Shenzhen is a rundown village that such joke should have happened.

That's payback to the British

Chinese Canyon Bridge Capital bought British firm Imagination Technologies back in 2017. Later Canyon Bridge tried to change the board of directors, install some of their own people at the board. Guess what,the UK government intervened and rejected the change. Can you imagine that you cannot even make personnel changes of your own company?Where is the rule of law?

Remember that ARM only owns 49% share of ARM China, China owns 51% share, so China is the principle shareholder of ARM China thus China can dictate personnel changes of the company. Where as Canyon Bridge owns 100% share of Imagination Technologies,so Canyon Bridge should have the absolute rights to make such change under commercial law.
 
Last edited:

tooLongInEDA

Active member
That's payback to the British

Chinese Canyon Bridge Capital bought British firm Imagination Technologies back in 2017. Later Canyon Bridge tried to change the board of directors, install some of their own people at the board. Guess what,the UK government intervened and rejected the change. Can you imagine that you cannot even make personnel changes of your own company?Where is the rule of law?

Remember that ARM only owns 49% share of ARM China, China owns 51% share, so China is the principle shareholder of ARM China thus China can dictate personnel changes of the company. Where as Canyon Bridge owns 100% share of Imagination Technologies,so Canyon Bridge should have the absolute rights to make such change under commercial law.
An interesting angle.

There are some key differences though. The Imagination case is an explicit, public action by the UK government which is presumably legal since it has not been challenged or reversed (I'm not going to defend the decision, just saying). You need to provide some firm evidence to state that this is "illegal" under UK law - rather than irrational/"wrong"/nonsensical/whatever. The UK government sometimes applies constraints on what can be done with companies after they are acquired. This is rare, but can happen (this isn't France ...) - for instance a foreign takeover of Rolls Royce (aero engines, not cars) would be blocked and SoftBank was required to increase employment at ARM UK.

The ARM China case is far more opaque.

So I don't think these really are equivalent.

I'd also be inclined (speaking as a Brit) to put the UK decision more likely down to incompetence rather than conspiracy and the goings on in ARM China perhaps not.
 

Tanj

Active member
An interesting angle.

There are some key differences though. The Imagination case is an explicit, public action by the UK government which is presumably legal since it has not been challenged or reversed (I'm not going to defend the decision, just saying). You need to provide some firm evidence to state that this is "illegal" under UK law - rather than irrational/"wrong"/nonsensical/whatever. The UK government sometimes applies constraints on what can be done with companies after they are acquired. This is rare, but can happen (this isn't France ...) - for instance a foreign takeover of Rolls Royce (aero engines, not cars) would be blocked and SoftBank was required to increase employment at ARM UK.

The ARM China case is far more opaque.

So I don't think these really are equivalent.

I'd also be inclined (speaking as a Brit) to put the UK decision more likely down to incompetence rather than conspiracy and the goings on in ARM China perhaps not.
The Canyon Bridge events were complicated since during review of the acquisition CB represented itself as a USA company but then after approval turned out to be an undeclared shell for Chinese owners. This triggered another review.
You can see the shell in the original news item.
 

tooLongInEDA

Active member
The Canyon Bridge events were complicated since during review of the acquisition CB represented itself as a USA company but then after approval turned out to be an undeclared shell for Chinese owners. This triggered another review.
You can see the shell in the original news item.
So that sounds like that was all the fault of Canyon Bridge in trying to pull a fast one - and they were lucky the deal wasn't called off after getting found out. It looks like due process was followed by the UK regulators then.
 

VCT

Active member
Asking all Arm China employee signing saying we only support Mr.Wu.
I bet no one is brave enough not to sign.
1653668666854.png
 

prime007

Active member
Thanks for the pictures of the signatures, VCT. Is it me or are there a few names that seem to repeat?

That said I hope ARM will NOT transfer access to the ARMv9 or any additional ARM IP to ARM China given the lack of cooperation from Chinese authorities. Or perhaps they can start a new company in China (completely separate from ARM China & Allen Wu) that manages ARM9 and their future IP.
 

tooLongInEDA

Active member
Thanks for the pictures of the signatures, VCT. Is it me or are there a few names that seem to repeat?

That said I hope ARM will NOT transfer access to the ARMv9 or any additional ARM IP to ARM China given the lack of cooperation from Chinese authorities. Or perhaps they can start a new company in China (completely separate from ARM China & Allen Wu) that manages ARM9 and their future IP.
"There's only one Nathan Zheng" to bastardise an English football chant.
 

hist78

Well-known member
Asking all Arm China employee signing saying we only support Mr.Wu.
I bet no one is brave enough not to sign.
View attachment 763

A lot mainland Chinese work very hard to make an honest living. But as shown in this letter, there are quite a few mainland Chinese who follow their leaders even when their leaders are doing things illegally and/or unethically. Their behavior is more close to a 19th century's clan than a 21st century technology company.

In Japan, Taiwan, Korea, USA, Canada, and European countries, at worst the employees will just quit and follow their leaders to join a competitor or form a new company. They have no desire to kidnap the company and occupy the company's positions and IT systems. Even if they feel their leaders are mistreated, they know the boundary.

When Allen Wu set up his own company to compete against Arm China, he failed to act as an honest and responsible CEO of Arm China. He was fired by the Arm China board of directors by vote, 7 to 1. That means both non Chinese and Chinese shareholders decided he is unfit to be the Arm China's CEO.

The story should have ended there. This two-year struggle can only prove the rule of law and intellectual property protection in mainland China is far below it should be in the modern world. That's one of the many reasons why a tiny Taiwan can have a robust semiconductor industry while mainland China still doesn't have one.
 
Last edited:

tooLongInEDA

Active member
How did ARM ever get itself into this mess in the first place ? An IP company that no longer has exclusive ownership of its own IP (in China) ! If this were a US public company, you could feel a shareholder class action lawsuit coming on. Was this a result of SoftBank ownership or were the decisions that lead up to this taken before then ?

Are there other western IP companies equally exposed/suffering from this China JV scam ? Or is it just ARM ? And the others have found some way to work around it ?
 

Paul2

Active member
How did ARM ever get itself into this mess in the first place ? An IP company that no longer has exclusive ownership of its own IP (in China) ! If this were a US public company, you could feel a shareholder class action lawsuit coming on. Was this a result of SoftBank ownership or were the decisions that lead up to this taken before then ?

Are there other western IP companies equally exposed/suffering from this China JV scam ? Or is it just ARM ? And the others have found some way to work around it ?

> China JV scam

It's 2022, and people still wire money to Nigerian princes on the Internet.

No shortage of people to get into that despite decades of horror stories.

Everybody ventures to China thinking they can "out-trick" locals, and the history repeats every time.
 
Top