Dahua Ordered To Pay $10 Million To NA Ex-President
Dahua has faced numerous legal issues in the U.S. ranging from bans under the NDAA and by the FCC to a six-year-long court battle with is former North American president, Feng (Frank) Zhang. Now a judge has awarded Zhang $10+ million in the case.
In this report, we examine the judgment, the financial implications for the company, and the likelihood that it will be paid.
Executive *******
************ *** ****** ** ** ******* to ******* ******* *********, ***** ********** USA *** ******* ** *** ***** the **** ********* ****** — ***** was *** *** ****** ****** — despite *** *******'* *********** *** ****** was *** ****** ** * "*********'* error." ** ******** ** *** ********, Zhang ** *** **** ******* ****** $7.6 ******* ** *********** ********.
*** ******** ***** ** ***** ***** to ****** ************* ********* ************** ********************* ******* ************* ******* ** *** ******** ** *** U.S. **** ******** ***** ******** ******** and ***** ****** ****** ** *****.
* *********** ***** ******** *** **** interfere **** *** *******'* **** ** sell *** *** ***-******* ******** ** a ******-***** ************, ***** ** ********* in *******. ********* ** *** *** transaction ** ***********, *** ********* ***** end ** ****** ***** ** *** buyer.
*************** *** ***** ******** ** ******* on *** ****** *** *** ****, citing "******* **********." ***** *** ******* has *** ****** ** ********* *** decision, * ******** ****** ** ***** of *** ******* *** ******* ******** for *****. ***** ******** ** *** whether ** **** ********* *** ****** judgment.
**********
***** ***** ***** ** **** **** to ***** ** ********* ** *** North ******** *** ********** ***** ********** in **** **** ** ****** ****** of $***,***. ******* *** *****-**** ********, the ******* ************ *** *** ** the **** **** * "****** ********* Advisor" ******** ** ****** ****. ** then ***** *** **** **** **** in ******* ****.
*** ******* *** ********** **** ** intended ** *** ***** * ***** of $***,*** ** ********* *** *** 16 ****** ********* ** *** ******* contract. *******, *** ******* ** *** agreement ****** **** ** *** **** a "*******" ******* ** $***,*** *** 16 ******, ** * ***** ** $10.9 *******. ***** ** *** *****, Zhang ******** *** **** ****** ***** the ********* ********, *** ********** ***** sued *** *********** ********.
* ************* ******* ***** ********* ***** for *****, *** **** *** ****** was ******** ** ******. ***** ** 11-day *****, *** ***** ** *********** legal ********* *** ***** ** ******* 2022, *** ****** ***** ***** **** to ****** *** **** *** ****** executive *** ****.
** *** ********, ***** *** **** under ********** ******** ** *** ** culminating ** *** *** **** ****, which *** ****** ******** ** *** US ********. *** ****:
- ***** ******* *** ** ******* ********, Impact ** *** *** **** **** Analyzed
- "*****’* ******* *****", ***** ***** *** NA **-*********
- ***** ******* **-***** ** ********* ** "Poor ***********" *** "*************"
- ***** **** ***, ***
- ***** **** **-***** ******** *********, **** Legal ****
Details ** *** ********
** ******** **, **** ********, *.*. ******** ***** ****** ******* found **** "*** ********* **** ** enforced ** *******."
********* ********** ******* ********, *** ***** *****:
Liquan **, *****’* ******** *** ********’* ********, was ******** ** ** *** ********* **** when he executed the Release Agreement on Dahua’s behalf without ******* **, and Zhang was **** ********, or, if not mistaken, knew or ****** **** ***** **** ***** *** *** ****** *** *** ******* ********* ** ******* ********* ******** ** *** ****** ** $***,*** *** ***** *** ******* ******, when he executed the Release Agreement on his own behalf. [Emphasis Added.]
*** **** ***** **** ***** "**** the **** ** **** ******* *** that *** **** *** ******** ********* to ***** ***** ** *** ******** of *** *************."
*** ***** ******* ***** **** *** contract ** "*** *********" *** **** Dahua ** *** **** ** ***** or ******* *** ******** ** ******* its ***** ******* *** ******. ********* to *** ******:
****, *** *******’objective ************* ** ***** ****** was that they entered into a contract by signing the written Release Agreement. As this court has found already, Dahua ****** **** *** ******* ** ***** *** ********, its counsel asked Zhang to review the contract, and its Director and Zhang signed the contract...Dahua *** *************** ******** ** ******* **** *** ********** ****** ** *** ******* to inquire if there was a “meeting of the minds,” as opposed to what the parties said and did. [Emphasis Added.]
*** ******** ** ** *******:
Allegations ** *************
****** *** ****-******* ***** ******, ***** alleged** * ***** ********* ***** ********** *** ***** ******** business, ****** *** ******* ** "*****" in ****, *** ****** ********* ****** performance ** ****. *** ******* **** claimed **** ***** *** *** "*** along" **** *** ****** **********.
*******, *** **-***** *********'* ******** ******** grew ***** ***** ***** *** *****.
************ ********* ** ******** *** ******* ***** **** ********. More *************, * ****** ** ** legal *** ********** ******* ********* * NDAA *** *** * *** ** the *** ** ****** ********* ************** has ******** ********** *** *******'* ******* to **** ** *** ****** ******.
Dahua ***** ******* ****
**** *** ********* **********, ***** *** opted ** **** *** ***** ******** business ** **** ** ********* ** a "********* ******-***** ************." ** ****** sent ** ******* *** ************, ** identified *** ******* ************ ****** * ***** ******** ********** lighting *************** ******* ****** * *********** ** *** ****.
*************** **** ******* *** ******* *** not ***** ** ****'* ******** *** comment ** *** $**+ ******* ******** and ******* ** ***** ****** *** sale. ***** *** *** ********* *** specific ***** ** *** ****, *** details ** *** *********, ** ******* it *** ******.
Dahua ** *******
**** ***** ** **** ***** *** reaction ** *** ****** *** *** sale, * ************ *** ***** ********** USA **** **: "** **** *** be ********** ** ** ******* ********** process."
*** ************ *** *** ******* *** additional *******.
Implications ** *** ******
** ** ******* *** * ******* of **** ****** ** ** ***** litigated ** *****, ** ********* ******* would ***** ** ***-**-***** ********** ** avoid ***** ******** *** ****** ********. The ****** ** *** ********** ******** both ***** **** ********* ** **********.
*** ***** ******** ***** ********* **** Dahua ********** ***'* **** ** ******* by ********** ********** ********. ****** ********* negotiated, ***** *********** ********* *** *********** to *** ***** ** * ******** in *** **.
** ******** **** $**+ ******* ** a *********** ******** ** ***** ***'* business. ** ****, *** ******* ********* its ******* ***** **** ~$** *******, a **** **** ~$** ******* ** 2020. **'* ********** ** ****** *** branded ***** ******* ******* ****** **** range ** ******** ******.
***** **** **** ** ***** ** the **** *** **** ****** ** the ~$* ******* *****, ***** **** they **** ********* ** $*.* ******* in ****.
Will *** ******** ** ****?
**** ** ** *****'* ********* *** ruling, ***** ** *** ***** ******** business's *** ***** *** ***** ***** paying ***** *** ***** ** ******** indefinitely. ********** ***** ******* *** ******** to **** ******* *********** *** ******* to *** *********.
*******, ****-******** ******** (***** *** ******* as **** ** *** ******) *** legal **** ***** ****** **********.
******: ***** ******** ** ****** ** *** ************ *** ** ***** ** ******* for *** ***** *******.