Maixinlin, a company listed on Shanghai’s STAR Market, disclosed on the evening of 2 November that its RMB 890 million compute server procurement contract had defaulted again. The supplier had been due to deliver sixteen servers by 31 October. What it delivered was sixteen server serial numbers.
Not one machine arrived. Shipment and acceptance checks have not begun.
Four filings since June describe how a contract reaches that point. On 26 June Maixinlin signed an equipment procurement contract with a party identified only as Company A, for a tax-inclusive total of about RMB 890 million. The filing on 29 June set out the terms: thirty per cent of the deposit within three working days of signature, all goods delivered by the end of September at the latest, and seventy per cent of each batch paid once a shipment notice is received and the equipment documentation checked.
Company A’s name, nature and registered address are exempt from disclosure on trade secret grounds. The filing states only that it is not a dishonest judgment debtor, has no connection to controlling shareholders or senior management, and had no comparable transactions with Maixinlin in the previous three years. Two parties with no history signed a contract, and RMB 267 million moved before a single unit shipped.
In a separate filing at the end of June the company put a factory and office space up for sale at RMB 403 million, citing asset activation and faster cash turnover. The purchase was to be funded from its own money plus borrowing, and the filing acknowledged the financing cost.
Two defaults, two penalty bases
The first batch was due by 25 August, at least 32 units. By 28 August none had arrived, past the three-working-day grace period. Under the contract, Company A was to return all paid funds and pay a penalty of 5 per cent of the total paid, which works out at RMB 13.344 million. Maixinlin sent a formal demand on 14 September.
By 21 September, the final delivery deadline, still nothing. The penalty basis changed to 5 per cent of the total value of undelivered goods, which came to RMB 44.48 million. The two clauses in the same contract use different bases, one on money paid and one on goods not delivered.
The 23 September filing noted that Maixinlin had not yet signed a formal agreement with any downstream customer, so no customer was being defaulted on, and that the delay was not expected to have a material adverse effect on operations, finances or cash flow. One risk note was candid: hardware iterates quickly, and by the time the machines arrive they may be obsolete on delivery.
There is also a disclosure timing question. A material change triggered at the end of August was not disclosed until 23 September, and the June filing never mentioned that the first batch of 32 units was contractually due in August. Whether the RMB 267 million comes back directly affects the company’s solvency.
On the evening of 8 October the company announced a supplementary agreement. Sixteen units by 31 October, sixteen more by 30 November, with the timing, quantity and price of the remainder to be negotiated. For batches delivered in full on schedule, the original late-delivery liability no longer applies.
The 23 September filing had listed terminating the contract and demanding return of the money plus damages as options. The company chose to extend instead, stating that obtaining the equipment and securing the compute business came first. That choice turned 31 October into the next test.
The balance sheet behind the order
Maixinlin reported third-quarter results on 29 October. Nine-month revenue was RMB 379 million, down 15.13 per cent. Net profit attributable to shareholders was RMB 4.67 million, down 91.71 per cent. The third quarter alone lost RMB 6.0954 million.
At the half year the company held RMB 204 million of cash, more than RMB 60 million short of the deposit it had already paid. The debt-to-asset ratio was 71.49 per cent, and short-term borrowings had risen from RMB 452 million at the end of the first quarter to RMB 671 million. Full-year 2025 net profit was RMB 17.5774 million.
The pattern is not unique. Feilixing terminated a compute agreement in 2024 after GPU servers failed to arrive, and Lianhua Holdings terminated a RMB 693 million procurement on chip shortages. Much of the sector buys against sales, taking a downstream order before placing the upstream one, which works while supply is reliable and becomes a cash trap when it is not.
The 30 November deadline covers another sixteen units. If those arrive, the contract survives in reduced form. If they do not, the question shifts from delivery schedules to whether a company with RMB 204 million of cash can absorb a RMB 267 million write-off.
Editor’s note: This is an adapted translation of the original OFweek report. It has been trimmed and restructured for readability for an international business audience. The full original (in Chinese) is at https://www.ofweek.com/ai/2026-11/ART-201714-8120-30710515.html.