新加坡主权财富基金起诉电池技术专利纠纷，Nio股价暴跌

新加坡主权财富基金因电池回收问题起诉后，Nio股份大幅下跌，该事件涉及电池回收再利用领域的问题，引发了市场对Nio公司未来发展的担忧，此次诉讼可能导致公司面临财务压力，投资者信心受到打击，摘要字数控制在规定范围内，简明扼要地概括了事件的核心内容和影响。

AI-generated image

Nio Inc. shares plunged after Singapore’s Government Investment Corporation filed a lawsuit in a U.S. court, alleging the Chinese electric-vehicle maker and its executives inflated revenue through a battery asset company set up with partners including CATL.

The complaint, filed in August in New Jersey federal court, names Nio CEO Li Bin and former CFO Fang Wei, accusing the company of using Wuhan-based Mirattery, a battery-as-a-service (BaaS) venture, to artificially boost revenue and mislead investors. The lawsuit marks the first time a national sovereign wealth fund has sued a U.S.-listed Chinese company, raising questions about cross-border trust and corporate governance.

In Hong Kong trading on Thursday, Nio’s shares dropped as much as 13% intraday before closing down 8.99% at HKD49.28, valuing the company at HKD121.9 billion. Nio’s stock had previously fallen from a 2021 high of US$62 to below US$10 this year, amplifying GIC’s claimed losses.

In response, a representative from the Shanghai-based company said on Friday that the case is unrelated to Nio's recent operations and stems from false claims in a short-selling report published by Grizzly Research in June 2022.

BaaS Under Scrutiny

The lawsuit centers on Nio’s 2020 BaaS program, which separates battery ownership from vehicles. Under the model, car buyers purchase the vehicle chassis, while the battery is owned by Mirattery and leased to users, generating recurring income for Nio.

GIC alleges Nio recognized the full revenue from battery sales upfront rather than on a subscription basis in line with U.S. accounting standards (ASC 606). For instance, a five-year battery lease should be recognized monthly, but Nio booked the entire amount immediately, creating a short-term spike in revenue.

Nio reported revenue of more than US$900 million in Mirattery’s first quarter of operations, up from under US$410 million in the previous quarter, which GIC claims misrepresents the company’s performance.

Nio counters that control over the battery had been transferred and obligations fulfilled at sale, justifying immediate revenue recognition under ASC 606. The company also notes that PwC, its auditor, raised no objections and that transactions were disclosed as related-party deals.

Alleged Hidden Control

Mirattery’s ownership structure shows Nio holding 19.84%, with CATL, Guotai Junan, and Hubei Science & Technology Investment among other shareholders. GIC contends this “sub-20%” stake was deliberately set to avoid consolidation under accounting rules, while Nio retained effective control through accounts receivable guarantees, lease buybacks, and operational dependencies, granting it roughly 55% economic interest.

GIC argues that Mirattery’s dependence on Nio—ranging from battery procurement and lease terms to maintenance and user operations—means it functions as a variable interest entity. If upheld, Nio would need to consolidate Mirattery’s financials, potentially reversing tens of billions of yuan in previously recognized revenue.

Founded in 1981, GIC manages nearly US$800 billion across global equities, bonds, real estate, private equity, and infrastructure. Traditionally a low-profile long-term investor, the fund has pursued litigation in past cases, including BP’s 2010 Gulf oil spill and Canadian pharmaceutical firms for disclosure failures.

Analysts view the timing of the Nio lawsuit as a strategic move: the Grizzly Research report alleging Mirattery-related accounting irregularities emerged in June 2022, but GIC waited until 2025 to sue, after substantial declines in Nio’s share price crystallized multi-billion-dollar losses. Reports estimate GIC bought roughly 54.4 million Nio ADS between August 2020 and July 2022, incurring paper losses of US$500 million to US$2 billion.

Since its 2018 U.S. IPO, Nio has posted cumulative net losses exceeding RMB120 billion, making it the only major Chinese EV startup yet to achieve sustained profitability. The company has repeatedly tapped capital infusions—from Hefei municipal rescue funding to Abu Dhabi sovereign investment and a US$1 billion equity raise in 2025—to maintain operations, leaving analysts questioning the sustainability of its business model.

Nio has restructured internal cost centers and targeted a fourth-quarter vehicle gross margin of 17%, but the GIC litigation introduces new uncertainty that could affect future financing and market confidence in Hong Kong, New York, and Abu Dhabi.

Broader Implications

The lawsuit highlights three key trends: first, a clash between business model innovation and accounting standards, signaling limited tolerance from global investors for aggressive revenue recognition. Second, a shift in sovereign wealth fund behavior from passive, long-term investor to active governance participant. Third, potential erosion of trust in U.S.-listed Chinese companies amid tightening cross-border oversight.

As international regulators increasingly scrutinize financial disclosures, Nio’s case may set a precedent for how institutional investors hold Chinese ADRs accountable, underscoring the stakes for companies navigating both rapid innovation and global capital markets.