A long-dormant domestic dispute between two former spouses has flared into a corporate governance test for one of China’s oldest private courier groups. On January 21 the Yuhuan People’s Court accepted a suit from Xi Chunyang, who seeks confirmation that roughly 20.28 million shares of listed courier firm STO Express, now registered in the name of co-founder Chen Xiaoying, are his by right of a 2012 divorce settlement. At the market close the same day those shares were worth about 280 million yuan, representing roughly 1.33 percent of the company.
The claim is narrow in arithmetic but wide in implication. Xi, who briefly served as STO’s deputy general manager and later built and sold Tiantian Express, says half of a block of about 40.57 million shares allocated during the divorce belonged to him. STO has acknowledged receipt of the suit and stressed that the litigation concerns a private divorce settlement and a shareholder qualification dispute, adding that the case should not materially affect operations, internal governance or the company’s controlling shareholding.
The parties’ shared history underscores why observers are watching. Chen Xiaoying and her late first husband helped found the business that became STO, and her brother Chen Dejun now chairs the listed company. The Chen siblings together control about 35.84 percent of STO, and Chen Xiaoying directly holds roughly 40.59 million shares, plus additional indirect holdings. Xi’s name appears in the company’s listing prospectus as having been briefly elevated to a senior management position around 2015, and he later exited to lead Tiantian Express, which he sold in 2017 for roughly 4.25 billion yuan.
Investors will weigh the legal risk against the company’s financial profile. STO’s top-line momentum has returned since 2022: for the first three quarters of last year revenue rose 15.2 percent to 38.57 billion yuan and net profit attributable to shareholders climbed 15.8 percent to 756 million yuan. The company posted full-year revenue of 47.17 billion yuan in 2024 and saw net profit rebound, though profits remain far below their 2018 peak. STO’s parcel volume surged to 227.29 billion items in 2024, but average revenue per parcel has fallen from 3.33 yuan in 2018 to about 2.05 yuan in 2024, reflecting intense price competition in the industry.
Beyond market metrics lies the governance angle. Legal claims tied to divorce settlements are sensitive for family-controlled listed companies, where the boundary between private agreements and corporate ownership can be blurred during restructurings and listings. If the court finds in Xi’s favor and orders the registration of shares to be transferred, it would set a precedent for similar post-listing disputes and could prompt closer scrutiny of historical internal allocations and disclosure practices across the sector.
Operationally STO points to limited exposure: the contested block is a sliver of total equity and the company says its controlling shareholders' grip is unchanged. But the timing matters. STO reported an elevated asset-liability ratio of 63.1 percent at the end of last September and liquidity ratios that signal tight short-term solvency. In a high-debt context even relatively small governance shocks can spook creditors and institutional investors, particularly in an industry still recalibrating after years of price-led competition.
The case also highlights the broader lifecycle of China’s express-delivery pioneers. STO was once at the center of the sector’s early consolidation; after the 1990s and 2000s it ceded leadership to rivals born of the same era. Chen family members monetized stakes in 2019 via two sales to Alibaba that raised about 14.6 billion yuan, and Chen Xiaoying’s personal wealth has been widely reported in the national rich lists. Litigation over legacy allocations may therefore be less about immediate economic control and more about settling historical claims and reputational narratives among founding teams.
For outside observers the immediate takeaway is straightforward: this is unlikely to upend STO’s operations, but it is a reminder that corporate histories and private attachments still matter in China’s family-dominated listed firms. The court’s timetable, whether the company’s disclosures satisfy investors, and whether similar claims surface elsewhere will determine whether this episode becomes a contained legal footnote or a wider governance story.