Some directors grumbled. They had imagined a quick international expansion and an enormous announcement. Now they faced cost controls, delayed construction, and questions from investors. One director suggested that the chairwoman should quietly settle with the hotel group and accept a smaller version of the transaction.
She asked what rights the smaller version would demand. He had no completed draft. She asked what independent assessment supported the price. He referred to the investor's projections. She pointed out that those projections still included property the company could not pledge.
'You are making this impossibly difficult,' he complained.
'It was already difficult,' she answered. 'The proposed contract simply concealed that difficulty beneath a very large number.'
The director leaned back, annoyed. But another board member nodded. She was an older businesswoman who had built a manufacturing company from a single workshop. She knew how tempting it was to accept investor enthusiasm as proof of value. 'I would rather explain slower growth to shareholders,' she said, 'than explain how we signed away somebody else's property.'
The board voted to suspend negotiations until an independent review of the disputed documents was completed. It also approved a revised operating plan that reduced dependence on a single investor. The decision angered several financial commentators when it became public. They called the chairwoman stubborn, inexperienced, and overly protective of sentimental assets. She read the headlines and remembered the finance director's remark that she had inherited control. Apparently competence had to be proved over and over, while a billionaire's promises were treated as evidence of their own truth.
The pressure campaign grew more visible. A short video appeared online showing only the final seconds of the banquet confrontation, beginning with the chairwoman placing the contract on the table. The earlier insults were absent. A commentator described her as a wealthy owner who pretended to be a waitress to humiliate foreign investors. The headline spread quickly.
Some viewers praised her. Others criticized her. Several focused on the qipao rather than the business documents. One argued that she had no right to wear traditional Chinese clothing. Another claimed she must have memorized a handful of Mandarin phrases for publicity. A third invented details about her family that were easily disproved but widely repeated.
The chairwoman's communications director wanted to release every available record. The legal adviser objected that private dining conversations and confidential contracts could not simply be published without considering privacy, consent, and legal obligations. The chairwoman agreed. She approved a factual statement confirming that the transaction was under review and that the company rejected harassment of staff. She refused to turn the evidence into an entertainment campaign.