Wingtech (闻泰科技) rebuts Nexperia (安世半导体) statements after auditor issues "unable to express an opinion"

Wingtech says Dutch intervention stymied audit

Wingtech (闻泰科技) has issued a forceful rebuttal to recent public comments from Nexperia (安世半导体), after its auditor issued an "unable to express an opinion" on Wingtech's 2025 financial and internal control reports. Wingtech says the root cause was intervention by Dutch authorities and litigation initiated by Nexperia Netherlands that, it claims, illegally deprived Wingtech of shareholder control over Nexperia and prevented effective consolidation. It has been reported that Wingtech alleges Nexperia Netherlands repeatedly blocked audit work by refusing to provide core valuation materials, shutting down IT systems and withholding post‑September 30 financial records.

Nexperia and Wingtech present conflicting narratives

Nexperia has previously stated that it sought constructive talks with Wingtech and has cooperated with audit procedures; Wingtech calls those claims misleading and says it repeatedly offered to negotiate a solution. Wingtech also said Nexperia China operations remain compliant and that several product lines — notably MOSFETs and logic ICs — have achieved a domestic supply‑chain "closed loop," with bipolar transistor lines expected to follow within the year. Wingtech says it reserves the right to pursue legal liability and compensation for damages to the company and investors.

Why this matters: cross‑border governance and semiconductor geopolitics

This is not merely a corporate dispute. It highlights the complex legal and geopolitical fault lines in cross‑border semiconductor ownership and governance — where national courts, export rules and state interests can suddenly reshape control of strategic assets. For Western readers unfamiliar with China’s tech landscape: such battles can quickly ripple into supply‑chain uncertainty and investor losses, and they often draw scrutiny from regulators in Europe and China alike. What happens next — negotiation, litigation or regulatory intervention — will determine whether customers and investors see stability or further disruption.

Both sides say they are open to solutions framed by law and fairness, but their public positions remain at odds. Investors and global customers will be watching closely as legal proceedings and potential talks unfold.