The life-saving tomato factory was found dead: why did Xinjiang's business stop again?

A shareholder council resolution was confirmed by the court of first instance in May 2025 and was revoked by second instance in November. Two months later, the entrepreneur who promoted the disposal of assets was arrested. (a) The crisis in the operation of Xinjiang Bi River Red Tomato Products Ltd., which led to a transfer from disputes between shareholders to criminal proceedings; New companies that have continued production have also failed to avoid a halt.

The story, published by Tanko Kuo, was archived in China's digital age, and traced the starting point of the dispute to the funding gap in

1. The two proposed loans, which are required to cover the cost of raw materials, transport and expansion, total $120 million, and the bank requires collateral from all shareholders. According to the source, the shareholders failed to agree on the guarantees, the approval of the loan was terminated and the company broke its financial chain in December of that year.

Willows had more than $49 million outstanding in borrowing at the time. The disposal described in the report was not a direct sale of the old plant to his new company: the claim was inherited by Twin River Rhythms, and the core assets of the Twin River Red were acquired at $75 million; The Yoo then set up a Twin River Fruit, renting plants and equipment to rhyme and continuing to process tomatoes. The labour contracts of most employees are productive. The original report showed a net profit of over $237.8 million in 2025.

This chain of transactions explains why Willows call it self-help and where shareholders ' disputes are concentrated. Another shareholder, a German, demanded the annulment of the resolution on debt in exchange for misappropriation of the company ' s assets. In May 2025, the Bolae Reclamation District Court found the relevant resolutions to be valid at first instance; In November, the fifth division of the Regiment, the Lieutenant-House, withdrew the resolution and suspended the implementation of the agreement on the grounds that the main body convening the meeting and the material of the notification had been in breach of the law.

Procedural revocations change the legal basis for asset disposal, but do not automatically answer all the questions in criminal cases. As previously reported, Yoo was summoned in December 2025 for alleged illegal disposal of seized, seized and frozen property and arrested on 9 January 2026 for suspected illegal operation of similar businesses and fraudulently fraudulently disassembly, selling companies and selling business assets. The case was referred to the Bolivar District Prosecutor ' s Office for prosecution and no convictions have yet been brought.

The “low price” dispute in particular needs to be put back to the actual transaction. The report included fixed assets with a book value of $86.4 million, an assessed value of over $7.78.4 million and a bargain of $75 million; The difference between the two is about $2.84 million. The bookkeeping, market assessment and the amount of the transaction were different questions answered. The reduction in book value and the sale price cannot be a substitute for a statement of the status of assets, the conditions of valuation and the direction of benefits; The recovery of production by debt in exchange for money cannot substitute for a judgement as to whether shareholders ' interests have been impaired.

Criminal prosecution has changed the production arrangements of the factory. It was reported that two companies were paralysed after Willow ' s arrest and that more than 100 workers were discharged. A business that was previously recruited by local companies for capacity, export and employment promotion experienced a disruption in financing, a dispute over assets and the arrest of the person in charge. For workers, the name of the new and old company changed once and the production line eventually stopped.

The test of the local business environment in this case is the way in which criminal powers enter into corporate disputes. Revoking the resolutions of the shareholders ' conference, recovering the assets in dispute and proving the operator ' s guilt are judicial work at different levels. If they are brought to the same conclusion, the decision to operate may be subject to criminal prosecution after the civil decision has been reversed, and the production is taken away together from the place where the factory was originally used for its livelihood.