《福布斯》香港新東家反駁福布斯家族

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》雜誌(Forbes)的中資所有者請求一家美國法庭駁回福布斯家族向他們提起的訴訟，聲稱原告今年10月提出的付款違約和公司行爲不端的指控毫無根據。

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.

根據12月15日遞交給特拉華州法庭的一份法律文件（英國《金融時報》看到了這份文件），香港公司本匯鯨(Integrated Whale Media, IWM)表示，美國法院不應受理此案，因爲福布斯家族已在英屬維京羣島的一家法庭提起類似訴訟。

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.

福布斯家族成員在今年10月在特拉華州提起的訴訟中指控，本匯鯨在2014年9月交易達成後拒絕支付部分所欠款項。該家族在之前在英屬維京羣島提起的訴訟中提出了類似的指控。

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.

福布斯家族的律師在特拉華州的訴訟（一些財務細節被塗黑，因爲收購時交易價值並未披露）中辯稱，本匯鯨曾同意以現金買下80%的股權。福布斯家族表示，爲了融資買下另外15%的股權，本匯鯨從福布斯家族借入資金。福布斯表示，本匯鯨原本同意分期償還這筆借款，但《福布斯》的新東家未能如期支付第一筆付款。

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.

根據12月向法庭提交的一份文件，本匯鯨表示，2014年交易完成時，該公司支付3.50億美元獲得80%股權，並同意分期支付另外的6560萬美元。

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

據瞭解這些中方投資者的人士表示，他們沒有從福布斯家族借錢。

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日遞交給特拉華州法庭的案情簡述中，本匯鯨承認未能如期支付4.6459萬美元的首筆利息款項。該公司表示，它後來支付了這筆款項。

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，本匯鯨表示，它拒絕解凍存放在一個第三方賬戶中的1750萬美元，這筆款項是爲了覆蓋在福布斯家族管理該公司期間任何違約所引發的潛在索賠要求。

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.

本匯鯨在其12月份提交的法庭文件中表示，福布斯家族在出售協議中做出了“重大虛假的”陳述，出於這個原因他們纔不願解凍這些資金。這些據稱虛假的陳述包括，福布斯家族未能在2014年達成協議之前披露，一家之前有權利使用福布斯品牌的烏克蘭公司在許可協議突然終止後曾威脅向福布斯媒體(Forbes Media)索賠至少2000萬美元。

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.”

本匯鯨表示，他們可能不得不向這家由當地寡頭擁有的烏克蘭公司支付的金額是個未知數，因此“（福布斯家族）尋求解凍這些資金的主張應該等到這些未知金額明朗之後”。

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.”

這家香港集團在發給英國《金融時報》的聲明中表示：“本匯鯨媒體投資有限公司(Integrated Whale Media Investments)已經採取措施反駁福布斯家族在特拉華州提起的訴訟，這起訴訟毫無理由。”

Forbes family members and their legal representatives declined to comment.

福布斯家族成員和他們的法律代表拒絕置評。

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，他們在今年10月的一份法庭文件中表示：“從理應合作的關係啓動以來，本匯鯨及其業主始終堅持拒絕支付他們顯然應付的款項。相反，他們找了一系列毫無根據——而且往往明顯錯誤——的理由和藉口，爲其拒絕履行基本的合約承諾開脫。”