Relevant individuals from Appotronics Corporation (688007.SH) respond to the progress of the GDC Hong Kong arbitration case: malicious litigation disrupting business operations.

In June 2024, GDC Technology Limited (BVI) (referred to as "GDC")'s subsidiary ESPEDEO HOLDINGS LIMITED (referred to as "ESPEDEO") filed for arbitration against Hong Kong Optoelectronics over a contract dispute with a claim amount of no less than 3.1671 million US dollars (case number HKIAC/24154) with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center. Appotronics Corporation (688007.SH) disclosed this matter on August 31, 2024, and April 30, 2025, respectively. On August 8, 2025, Appotronics Corporation announced that it had received an updated arbitration application from ESPEDEO, raising the claim amount to 31.0235 million US dollars. The announcement emphasized that the products in question were customized and developed by Hong Kong Optoelectronics for ESPEDEO, and there were specific provisions in the contract limiting the liability for compensation. In other words, there is a "ceiling" for the compensation amount in case of problems requiring compensation during the collaboration. In response to this matter, Appotronics Corporation stated that this arbitration will not have a significant adverse impact on the company's ongoing operations or interfere with current business activities. The company has assembled a professional legal team to actively defend itself and protect the legitimate rights and interests of all shareholders through legal means. Since the case has not yet entered the formal trial stage, the final impact will be based on the arbitration decision or negotiated result between the parties. "This is a typical malicious litigation," emphasized a person related to Appotronics Corporation. "ESPEDEO suddenly increased the claim amount tenfold a year after submitting the arbitration application, clearly aiming to trigger the company's disclosure obligations and disrupt normal operational order, which seriously wastes judicial resources." A lawyer following this case pointed out, "Before the issuance of the arbitration decision, there are no legal restrictions on the applicant adjusting the compensation amount, but from a procedural perspective, raising the claim amount nearly tenfold one year after arbitration initiation, combined with clear provisions limiting compensation liability in the contract, more closely aligns with the characteristic of 'using litigation to disrupt the other party's operations.' This behavior is suspected of wasting judicial resources."