The Dutch headquarters reportedly dismissed John Chang, Vice President of Global Sales and Marketing.
Nexperia China rejects that decision, declaring it legally invalid in China and asserting its own managerial independence.
1. The Dutch decision has no legal effect in China
Nexperia China states that, after review by professional legal institutions, the Dutch headquarters’ unilateral decision:
- violates Chinese law, including the Company Law and Labor Contract Law;
- conflicts with Nexperia China’s articles of association;
- and therefore, has no legal force within Chinese jurisdiction.
In short, Nexperia China argues that foreign headquarters cannot unilaterally make employment or management decisions affecting the Chinese subsidiary under Chinese law.
2. John Chang remains in his position
Nexperia China declares that Mr. John Chang’s labor contract remains valid and has not been legally terminated or modified.
He continues as Vice President of Global Sales and Marketing, retaining full authority over global and Chinese sales operations, customer relations, supply chain coordination, and daily management.
3. All actions taken by John Chang are legally bindin
Any contracts, agreements, or management decisions made by John Chang or his authorized representatives in China are considered formally valid and legally effective acts of Nexperia China.
The company confirms it assumes full legal responsibility for such acts.
4. Business operations continue as normal
Nexperia China emphasizes that all business, production, and cooperation activities remain stable and unaffected by the unilateral actions of the Dutch headquarters.
Operations continue “in an orderly and normal manner”, under Chinese law and internal governance frameworks.
5. Strong criticism of Nexperia Netherlands and foreign interference
In the final section, the tone becomes overtly political.
Nexperia China claims that the dispute:
- originates from “certain individuals in foreign governments and Nexperia Netherlands” acting with ulterior motives;
- violates the spirit of contracts and Chinese law;
- and seeks to disrupt the company’s normal operations and create chaos.
It asserts that foreign interference will not shake the company’s foundations, nor affect its long-standing partnerships, built on stability, trust, and mutual benefit.
6. Legal warning
Nexperia China reserves all legal rights to pursue liability against any acts or individuals that interfere with its business order or harm the commercial cooperation environment without legitimate authorization.
Summary
This document is, effectively, a public declaration of legal and managerial autonomy by Nexperia China.
It rejects the authority of its Dutch parent company over internal Chinese operations and presents itself as governed solely by Chinese law.
The statement serves two audiences:
- Domestic reassurance — assuring Chinese employees, partners, and regulators that operations are stable.
- Foreign warning — signaling to the Dutch headquarters (and, implicitly, Western governments) that Chinese subsidiaries will not accept external control that contravenes national law.
Geopolitical interpretation
1. A corporate statement disguised as a sovereignty declaration
Although written in the format of a company notice, this document functions as a political manifesto.
Nexperia China is asserting jurisdictional sovereignty — not merely corporate autonomy — over its operations in the People’s Republic of China.
By declaring that the Dutch headquarters’ decision “has no legal effect within the territory of China,” the company is invoking Chinese legal supremacy as a shield against foreign corporate control.
This reflects a broader pattern: Chinese subsidiaries of foreign companies increasingly act as quasi-national entities, governed by Chinese law first, and only secondarily by the corporate structures of their global parents.
2. Beijing’s legal doctrine of “territorial supremacy”
The argument made by Nexperia China — that a foreign company’s internal management decision cannot override Chinese law — directly mirrors Beijing’s “territorial jurisdiction” principle.
This principle has become central to China’s regulatory posture in sectors deemed strategic for national security, such as semiconductors, data, and telecommunications.
In essence, the statement is saying:
“Foreign corporate governance stops at China’s border.”
It’s a subtle but profound challenge to the global corporate law model, where decisions by a parent company are automatically binding on subsidiaries worldwide.
3. A symptom of tech decoupling and strategic distrust
Nexperia itself, owned by China’s Wingtech Technology, has been under Western scrutiny since 2021, when its acquisition of Newport Wafer Fab (UK) triggered national-security investigations.
The present conflict suggests that tensions between Chinese corporate actors and Western regulatory pressures have now turned inward — into disputes over who actually controls global Chinese firms.
By defying the Dutch headquarters, Nexperia China is effectively declaring that Chinese law and management priorities take precedence even within an ostensibly Dutch-registered company.
It’s a legal manifestation of economic decoupling, where operational control and legal accountability are being re-nationalized.
4. The political tone: foreign hostility and legal legitimacy
The statement’s language — references to “individuals in foreign governments with ulterior motives” — carries a distinctly political undertone.
It echoes the rhetoric of the Chinese state, framing the issue not as a commercial disagreement but as foreign interference in domestic affairs.
By doing so, the company aligns itself symbolically with the Chinese government’s discourse on sovereignty and non-interference.
This move is strategic: it situates Nexperia China within the protective narrative of national law, insulating it from potential foreign sanctions or administrative actions.
5. Implications for multinational governance
The broader implication is that multinational corporations operating in China — especially in high-tech sectors — now face a dual compliance regime:
- Corporate law obligations to their parent companies abroad;
- Sovereign law obligations to Chinese authorities, which are increasingly assertive.
When these two collide, as this case demonstrates, Chinese law prevails inside China — even against decisions by a parent company headquartered in the West.
This effectively transforms subsidiaries like Nexperia China into autonomous legal actors, capable of rejecting foreign directives if they are deemed inconsistent with Chinese law.
6. Strategic message
Beyond the immediate employment dispute, this is a message to the international community:
- China will not tolerate extraterritorial corporate governance that undermines domestic control;
- Multinational firms must localize legal authority and management power to operate securely within China;
- Western governments’ efforts to isolate or control Chinese-linked semiconductor firms will face systemic resistance, not only from the state but from the corporate entities themselves.
7. Conclusion (implicit)
In short, this “employment validity” statement is much more than HR paperwork.
It is a microcosm of the global fragmentation of corporate authority.
China is asserting — through its companies — that even globalized firms must operate under the full jurisdiction and ideological frame of Chinese law.
The Nexperia case illustrates how the frontier between corporate law and state sovereignty is dissolving in the age of geopolitical competition over technology.
