Behind the $3. 8 billion debt dispute, this "tore-to-face" by yonghui and wanda group is pushing off-line the transition dilemma. The number of cases officially opened by the court to pursue the sum of 3. 8 billion will probably relieve the immediate urgency of a tight cash flow, but it is clearly not enough to live truly。
Back then, there was a 4. 5 billion-billion-dollar honeymoon, and now there's money to go to court. – this is in essence typical of contractual debt disputes, as mentioned in the reference to “disputes arising from the non-payment of contractual payments by one of the parties to the contract of sale”. But the problem is more than that, and the many models of wanda-based travel, complexes, etc., have developed in many ways, and the fact that yong-hui is still paying a lot of money to shut down the shop, repair the shop, and that attempts at the traditional traders’ super-transformation line have been met repeatedly is more lethal。
Even if $3. 8 billion were to be recovered successfully this time, the core issues to be addressed are how to reshape the supply chain, reduce operating costs and capture emerging entry points, such as community buys. After all, debt claims are a matter of short-term finance, and the real difficulty is to re-establish the survival logic of off-line retailing. And as the industry goes, "3. 8 billion may be a relief, but it will not be able to save the overall decline of being hit by an electrician and being diverted from community groups."
