An 84‑year‑old founder’s decision to publicly sever ties with his son has thrown a once‑dominant Chinese footwear brand into the spotlight and illustrated the governance pitfalls that beset many family businesses. In early January 2026, the patriarch of Double Star issued a notarised statement denouncing his son and daughter‑in‑law for seizing corporate seals, restricting his liberty and attempting to hand control to family members with foreign residency. The row follows a series of equity transactions and boardroom clashes that have been playing out for several years and are now in court.
The dispute traces back to a 2022 capital injection that left an entity controlled by the daughter‑in‑law the largest shareholder, diluting the founder’s stake from majority influence to roughly 22 percent. Tensions escalated after 2024, as management roles were reshuffled and contested, culminating in reported physical confrontations over the company chop in April 2025 and a public exchange of newspaper notices in December. Both sides have since filed legal challenges over the validity of board decisions, while employees and suppliers faced uncertainty.
Beyond the immediate ownership fight, the controversy exposes deeper disagreements about what Double Star should be. The founder frames the company as a national brand that must remain in Chinese hands, explicitly objecting to successors with United States residency; his son’s camp has pushed for institutionalised, de‑personalised management and a professionalised succession. Chinese company law places primary weight on shareholding and formal governance processes rather than kinship or nationality, making the conflict as much about control and corporate norms as about sentiment.
The timing of the public rupture compounds Double Star’s troubles because the company has already lost standing in a transformed market. Born in the 1920s and rebuilt during China’s reform era, Double Star once boasted thousands of retail outlets and a household name slogan. Market share weakened after early‑2000s diversification and the 2008 demerger of shoe operations, while global and domestic competitors — from Nike and Adidas to Li‑Ning and Anta — invested heavily in design, marketing and distribution. The firm today relies on lower‑price segments, has seen its retail footprint shrink by nearly half from peak, and faces mounting consumer complaints.
Strategically, the family battle has eroded the company’s capacity to respond. Protracted infighting saps managerial bandwidth, scares off partners and lenders, and delays needed investment or a decisive repositioning of product and channel strategy. Public appeals to nationalism may win short‑term popular sympathy, but they do not substitute for a clear governance structure, fresh product development and marketing that resonates with younger consumers.
The case will matter beyond Double Star. It is a cautionary tale for legacy Chinese brands grappling with intergenerational succession, minority shareholder protections and the transition from founder control to corporate governance. The judicial outcome will clarify the legal standing of the contested equity moves and board resolutions, but reputational damage and lost market momentum are already significant. If the firm cannot stabilise governance quickly and commit to professional management and product renewal, Double Star risks sliding from nostalgic flagship to marginal player — a fate shared by other industrial pioneers that failed to modernise.