Developments in the Nexperia control dispute

The ongoing dispute over control between Nexperia B.V. (“Nexperia”) and its Chinese parent company Wingtech Technology (“Wingtech”) has recently advanced through measures and decisions issued in proceedings before both Dutch and Chinese courts.

In China, according to an announcement filed by Wingtech with the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the Intermediate People’s Court of Dongguan, Guangdong Province (the “Dongguan Intermediate Court”) issued an asset-preservation order on 28 August 2026.

In the Netherlands, on 2 September 2026, the District Court of Gelderland (the “Arnhem District Court”) conditionally allowed a petition from Wingtech subsidiary Yuching Holding Limited (“Yuching”) for a preliminary witness hearing of three directors of Nexperia. The decision rejects the other elements of the petition and limits the examination to facts relevant to proceedings concerning an intercompany loan of USD 480 million granted by Nexperia to Yuching (the “Intercompany Loan”).

This Insight builds on our previous overview of this dispute, ‘The Nexperia Investigation and Its Implications’, which covered the origins of the dispute over control of Nexperia and developments in early 2026.

Asset preservation order by the Dongguan Intermediate Court

On 22 May 2026, the Dongguan Intermediate Court accepted the case filed by Wingtech and Yuching. The case is a tort liability claim against Nexperia, Nexperia Holding B.V., its subsidiary ITEC B.V. (a Netherlands-based semiconductor equipment maker) and various (statutory and non-statutory) directors of Nexperia.

Relying on China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, Wingtech and Yuching argue that the Dutch ministerial order and the Enterprise Chamber’s rulings constitute discriminatory restrictive measures within the meaning of that law and that the defendants’ implementation of, or assistance in implementing, those measures caused them substantial and irreparable losses, entitling them to seek cessation of the alleged infringement and damages.

Wingtech and Yuching seek the following relief in the proceedings before the Dongguan Intermediate Court:

• A ruling that the defendants’ conduct constitutes implementation of, or assistance in the implementation of, discriminatory restrictive measures adopted by a foreign state within the meaning of China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.
• Withdrawal of the proceedings before the Dutch Enterprise Chamber and all related interim measures, and steps to procure the termination of the Dutch government’s order under the Goods Availability Act.
• If those measures cannot be reversed, the transfer of Nexperia and certain Nexperia/ITEC subsidiaries to Wingtech, effectively restoring Wingtech’s control.
• Compensation of approximately RMB 8 billion (approximately USD 1.1 billion) for alleged economic losses.
• Payment by the defendants of all litigation costs.

On 28 August 2026, following an application by Wingtech and Yuching, the Dongguan Intermediate Court ordered asset preservation measures in connection with the claims put forward. The order took effect immediately. As a result, assets up to an aggregate value of approximately RMB 2.139 billion (approximately USD 300 million) have been seized until further notice, including equity interests in several Chinese subsidiary companies held by Nexperia and ITEC B.V. The measures are preservatory only and do not represent a final judgment on the merits.

Arnhem District Court decision of 2 September 2026

While the investigation into Nexperia’s policies and operations ordered by the Enterprise Chamber on 11 February 2026 continues, the Arnhem District Court ruled on 2 September 2026 on a separate request from Yuching for a preliminary witness hearing. The requested examination concerns two executive (statutory) directors of Nexperia and one non-statutory director.

Yuching argued that the witness examination is expressly not intended to relate to the pending proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber but is required in order to gather (witness) evidence in the ongoing civil proceedings before the Dongguan Intermediate Court, and in the proceedings announced by Nexperia before the Dutch civil courts to enforce repayment of the Intercompany Loan.

In December 2025, Nexperia terminated the Intercompany Loan and demanded repayment by Yuching of the full amount outstanding, being more than USD 525 million, including interest and costs. Nexperia’s ground for termination was that its banks had terminated their financing due to the ‘change of control’ following the Enterprise Chamber’s decision to strip Wingtech’s control over Nexperia. Yuching, for its part, has taken the position that Nexperia is wrongfully demanding full repayment of the Intercompany Loan, on the basis that Nexperia itself engineered the change of control that triggered the termination.

In its decision, the Arnhem District Court partially granted Yuching’s request and ordered a preliminary examination of the witnesses, finding that Yuching has a sufficient interest in establishing the facts around the Intercompany Loan and, in particular, its termination by Nexperia. The court limited the scope of the examination to facts relating to the Intercompany Loan only, thereby rejecting all other elements of Yuching’s petition. The witnesses may therefore not be examined on other matters, including facts relevant only to other liability proceedings or to the proceedings in China. The examination may moreover only commence once the report on the investigation ordered by the Enterprise Chamber has been published.

Implications

Tensions between the West and China over trade and technological autonomy have intensified in recent years, and the Enterprise Chamber’s decisions in 2025 to strip Wingtech of control over Nexperia have further entrenched this divide.

The decision by the Dongguan Intermediate Court illustrates that reliance on China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law may have concrete consequences for companies with a China nexus. The dispute also reflects a wider geopolitical reality: disputes concerning the control of companies in sensitive technology sectors may no longer be confined to ordinary shareholder litigation. Measures taken in the West on national security grounds may give rise to retaliatory litigation in China.

For investors and multinational groups operating in strategically sensitive sectors, this case is a reminder that legal risk assessment should no longer stop at FDI screening, export controls or sanctions compliance. It should also account for subsequent litigation, director exposure and asset vulnerability in third countries, particularly where Chinese counterparties or China-based operations are involved.

We will continue to monitor these proceedings, including the publication of the report on the Enterprise Chamber’s investigation and its effect on the Dutch and Chinese proceedings. If you would like to discuss what this dispute may mean for your business’s exposure in China, please get in touch with our team.