《福布斯》香港新东家反驳福布斯家族

The Chinese owners of Forbes magazine have asked a US court to dismiss the Forbes family’s lawsuit against them, arguing allegations made in October of payment default and corporate abuse are without merit.

《福布斯》杂志(Forbes)的中资所有者请求一家美国法庭驳回福布斯家族向他们提起的诉讼，声称原告今年10月提出的付款违约和公司行为不端的指控毫无根据。

Integrated Whale Media (IWM) said that the US case should be thrown out as the family had already initiated a similar case in a British Virgin Islands court, according to a legal document sent to a Delaware court on December 15, which has been seen by the Financial Times.

根据12月15日递交给特拉华州法庭的一份法律文件（英国《金融时报》看到了这份文件），香港公司本汇鲸(Integrated Whale Media, IWM)表示，美国法院不应受理此案，因为福布斯家族已在英属维京群岛的一家法庭提起类似诉讼。

Forbes family members said in the Delaware lawsuit filed in October that IWM had refused to pay what it owed them as part of the deal agreed in September 2014. It made similar allegation in an earlier lawsuit filed in BVI.

福布斯家族成员在今年10月在特拉华州提起的诉讼中指控，本汇鲸在2014年9月交易达成后拒绝支付部分所欠款项。该家族在之前在英属维京群岛提起的诉讼中提出了类似的指控。

Forbes lawyers argued in the Delaware lawsuit — which had financial details redacted as the value of the deal was not disclosed at the time of purchase — that IWM had agreed to pay 80 per cent stake of the consideration in cash. To fund an additional 15 per cent stake, IWM borrowed funds from the Forbes family, according to the family. Forbes said that IWM agreed to repay the loan in instalments but the new owners failed to pay the first instalment on time.

福布斯家族的律师在特拉华州的诉讼（一些财务细节被涂黑，因为收购时交易价值并未披露）中辩称，本汇鲸曾同意以现金买下80%的股权。福布斯家族表示，为了融资买下另外15%的股权，本汇鲸从福布斯家族借入资金。福布斯表示，本汇鲸原本同意分期偿还这笔借款，但《福布斯》的新东家未能如期支付第一笔付款。

IWM said that it paid $350m in 2014 at the time of the deal for the 80 per cent stake and agreed to pay another $65.6m in a series of instalments, according to the December filing.

根据12月向法庭提交的一份文件，本汇鲸表示，2014年交易完成时，该公司支付3.50亿美元获得80%股权，并同意分期支付另外的6560万美元。

People close to the Chinese investors said they had not borrowed money from the Forbes family.

据了解这些中方投资者的人士表示，他们没有从福布斯家族借钱。

In the brief sent to the Delaware court on December 15, the Hong Kong group admitted missing the interest payment on the first instalment of $46,459. It said that it has since made that payment.

在12月15日递交给特拉华州法庭的案情简述中，本汇鲸承认未能如期支付4.6459万美元的首笔利息款项。该公司表示，它后来支付了这笔款项。

However, it said it had refused to unlock $17.5m that had been placed in an escrow account to cover potential claims for indemnification based on any breaches of contract when the company was run by the Forbes family.

然而，本汇鲸表示，它拒绝解冻存放在一个第三方账户中的1750万美元，这笔款项是为了覆盖在福布斯家族管理该公司期间任何违约所引发的潜在索赔要求。

IWM alleged in its December filing that the Forbes family had made “materially false” representations in the sale agreement and for this reason did not want to release the money in escrow. It claimed that among these alleged false representations the Forbes family failed to disclose before the 2014 deal was agreed that a Ukrainian company that had the rights to use the Forbes brand had threatened to sue Forbes Media for at least $20m after the license agreement was terminated abruptly.

本汇鲸在其12月份提交的法庭文件中表示，福布斯家族在出售协议中做出了“重大虚假的”陈述，出于这个原因他们才不愿解冻这些资金。这些据称虚假的陈述包括，福布斯家族未能在2014年达成协议之前披露，一家之前有权利使用福布斯品牌的乌克兰公司在许可协议突然终止后曾威胁向福布斯媒体(Forbes Media)索赔至少2000万美元。

The Chinese investors said that the exact sum that they might have to pay to the Ukrainian company, owned by a local oligarch, is unknown and therefore “[Forbes’] claims seeking release of the escrow should be stayed until the unknowable sum becomes certain.”

本汇鲸表示，他们可能不得不向这家由当地寡头拥有的乌克兰公司支付的金额是个未知数，因此“（福布斯家族）寻求解冻这些资金的主张应该等到这些未知金额明朗之后”。

In a statement to the FT, the Hong Kong group said: “Integrated Whale Media Investment has moved to dismiss the Forbes family’s Delaware lawsuit, which is completely without merit.”

这家香港集团在发给英国《金融时报》的声明中表示：“本汇鲸媒体投资有限公司(Integrated Whale Media Investments)已经采取措施反驳福布斯家族在特拉华州提起的诉讼，这起诉讼毫无理由。”

Forbes family members and their legal representatives declined to comment.

福布斯家族成员和他们的法律代表拒绝置评。

However, back in October they said in a court filing that: “From the outset of the supposed partnership, Integrated Whale and its principals have steadfastly refused to pay what they clearly owe, and instead have made a series of baseless — and often patently false — excuses and pretexts for their refusal to honour their basic contractual commitments.”

然而，他们在今年10月的一份法庭文件中表示：“从理应合作的关系启动以来，本汇鲸及其业主始终坚持拒绝支付他们显然应付的款项。相反，他们找了一系列毫无根据——而且往往明显错误——的理由和借口，为其拒绝履行基本的合约承诺开脱。”