阿里IPO诉讼：创美国中概股最高和解赔偿

阿里在给SEC 的文件中解释说，“我们预计，大部分的和解金将来自我们的董事和高级职员责任保险。除本公司外，任何被告均不作需要承担和解金。根据双方当事人的协议，和解协议明确规定，和解并不构成承认或认定加利福尼亚诉讼中提出的要求有任何法律依据。”根据协议的条款，诉讼中的所有被告都将被完全解脱，所有在加利福尼亚诉讼中提出的诉讼请求都将被全部撤销。”

该和解协议须经法院批准。

阿里此次7500万美元的和解赔偿，创下了在美国中概股集体诉讼的最高和解赔偿金额。

此前中概在美国的和解赔偿大多是1000万美元以下，超过1000万美元的有，但并不多；另外有几家赔偿金额超过亿美元，但是主要由于缺席审判所导致，并非是和解赔偿。此外，考虑到阿里的市值体量，所以和其他中概和解赔偿的金额也无法相比较。

以下是阿里于2018年12月31日提交给SEC 的监管文件内容：

未了的另外一起集体诉讼

联邦层面股东集体诉讼

这起诉讼是“白皮书”事件之后爆发的主要集体诉讼，受理法院是纽约南区。阿里曾经于2016年成功申请法院驳回起诉，然而，不幸的是，在原告上诉之后，美国巡回法庭于2017年12月裁决要求南区法院重新审理该案是否应该驳回；

此后，原被告双方进入了激烈的博弈。

现在，案件已经进入证据开示的过程；证据开示是双方激烈出招化招的过程；费时费力。

通常而言，原告律师会要求被告和其他同本案相关的第三方，提供证据信息；而被告通常会启用 "律师客户优先权privilige“等法律原则，对这些证据信息进行合理编辑，或者干脆不提供。当然，此间双方的纠纷需要通过法官来裁决，法官通常会基于被告在此诉讼中的表现，比如是否符合诚信原则、是否滥用”律师客户优先权“等等，做出裁决，是否同意原告的取证要求。

在阿里这个案件中，原告提出了要求阿里提供当时阿里法务等部门和高管之间的电子邮件内容，双方现在就此内容是否应该提供，如何提供，进行激烈交锋；而以下的三个法官令，就是对此相关内容作出裁决，要求被告提供原告所要求的某些内容......

2018年11月16日，阿里IPO 集体诉讼联邦案之法官令

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 Letter Motion to Compel. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants to produce certain documents that Plaintiffs contend Defendants have improperly withheld or redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work product protection. (ECF No. 85 .) In support of their motion, Plaintiffs identified eleven documents that they contend "raise doubts" about the accuracy of Defendants privilege logs. (Pls.' Mem. of L. in Support Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 86, at 10.) The Court conducted an in camera review of those documents, as well as eleven additional documents selected by the Court. (See 11/6/2018 Order, ECF No. 97.) On November 15, 2018, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties regarding Plaintiffs' motion. For the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby Ordered as follows: 1. No later than Wednesday, November 21, 2018, Defendants shall produce full and complete copies of Document Nos. 1 and 96, and redacted versions of Document Nos.404 and 1181. (See Ex. 11 to Kry Decl., ECF No. 87-11.) The Court finds that the remainder of the documents reviewed in camera were properly designated as privileged and/or work product. 2. Defendants shall submit the following additional fourteen documents to the Court (via email to Chambers) for in camera review: Document Nos. 58, 136, 148, 295, 391, 1187, 1191, 1192, 1226, 1294, 1300 and 1321, all as identified in Ex. 11 to the October 20, 2018 Kry Declaration (ECF No. 87-11); and Document Nos. 194 and 437, both as identified in Ex. 15 to the November 8, 2018 Kry Declaration (ECF No. 101-1.). Any such documents that are in the English language shall be submitted no later than Monday, November 19, 2018. Any such documents that reference Sara Yu shall be submitted no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2018, in order to allow Plaintiffs to prepare for her upcoming deposition. The remaining documents shall be submitted no later than Wednesday, November 28, 2018. 3. No later than Thursday, December 6, 2018, Defendants shall conduct an additional review of their privilege logs to ensure that all of their privilege assertions are appropriate, taking into account the Court's assessment of the documents that have (or will be) reviewed in camera. Any documents that Defendants determine were improperly designated as privileged and/or work product shall be produced to Plaintiffs as soon as that determination is made, but no later than December 6. 4. As the Court finds that Defendants otherwise have made proper privilege assertions and have been operating in good faith, the Court denies Plaintiffs' request for in camera review of additional documents at this time. However, Plaintiffs are not foreclosed from raising future challenges to Defendants' assertions of privilege, upon an additional good cause showing that such review is appropriate. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/16/2018) (kl) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

2018年11月20 日，阿里IPO 集体诉讼联邦案之法官令

ORDER: No later than Wednesday, November 28, 2018, Defendants shall EITHER (1) produce to Plaintiffs Document No. 1226 with only the following portions redacted: email sent by Kevin Zhang on 2/1/15 at 6:57 PM, email sent by Wallace Cheung on 2/1/15 at 6:28 PM, email sent by Joe Tsai on 2/1/15 at 3:09 PM, and email sent by Jane Penner on 2/1/15 at 2:33 PM; OR (2) show cause in a written submission to the Court why the remaining portions of Document No. 1226 are subject to privilege (the version of any written submission made pursuant to this Order that is served on Plaintiffs may be redacted by Defendants to remove information that would divulge matters subject to privilege). So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/20/2018) (js) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

2018年11月22日，阿里IPO 集体诉讼联邦案之法官令

ORDER: Per the Court's November 16, 2018 Order (ECF No. 109), the Court has received from Defendants for in camera review the following documents: Document Nos. 136 (both as produced in redacted form and without redaction), 148, 295, 391 and 1321, all as identified in Ex. 11 to the October 20, 2018 Kry Declaration (ECF No. 87-11); and 437 (both as produced in redacted form and without redaction), as identified in Ex. 15 to the November 8, 2018 Kry Declaration. (ECF No. 101-1.) With the exception of certain portions of Document No. 295, the Court finds that the documents reviewed in camera were properly designated as privileged. No later than Wednesday, November 28, 2018, Defendants shall EITHER (1) produce to Plaintiffs Document No. 295 with only the following portions redacted: email sent by Rachel Chen on 1/29/15 at 16:49, email sent by James Wilkinson on 1/29/15 at 4:42 PM, and email sent by Cai Chongxin on 1/29/15 at 4:05 PM; OR (2) show cause in a written submission to the Court why the remaining portions of Document No. 295 are subject to privilege (the version of any written submission made pursuant to this Order that is served on Plaintiffs may be redacted by Defendants to remove information that would divulge matters subject to privilege). SO ORDERED. (TEXT ONLY ORDER) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/22/2018) (Aaron, Stewart) (Entered: 11/22/2018)

看来，联邦层面的诉讼博弈还会持续下去，能持续多久，现在外界还无法判断；集体诉讼十分费时间费精力，如果成功，那么原告律师所获得的服务费收入也十分可观；通常而言，几千万美元的和解赔偿，原告律师可以获得的服务费收入可以高达赔偿金额的三分之一。

所以，诉讼的结果，往往取决于减持，这也是一种持久战。

集体诉讼并非是正义与否的裁决，其实是一种规则下的博弈。所以，许多情况下，被告会选择和解，尤其是从经济角度和企业持续经营管理的角度看，用可以承受的代价，尽快结束集体诉讼，很多情况下是企业的正常选择。毕竟，让管理层从诉讼的纠缠中解脱出来，将主要精力放在公司的日常经验管理上，这才是正道。

就阿里在美国联邦层面的集体诉讼，是否最终会选择和解，还是会坚持到开庭，或者最好由陪审团来裁决？现在外人无法判断，估计连当事人也无法预计；有时候证据开示发生变化，可能会导致当事人改变立场。

面对当下正激烈的诉讼，阿里会选择和还是继续战，还是会战斗到底？我们拭目以待。继民财经汇将会继续关注本案，并和朋友们共同探讨和分享案件的精彩内容。

延伸阅读：

刚刚，北美传来坏消息，阿里彻底怒了

独家：美国为何要重审阿里IPO 集体诉讼案？（附法院判决书）

阿里美国IPO诉讼案：上诉法院要求重审；阿里需要赔偿吗？

想告，就告吧马云一句话，阿里市值重回2000亿

SEC 为何调查，询问阿里巴巴？

接下来是音乐欣赏时间，希望大家喜欢，请君随意