TrueEV has become aware of an article published by CnEVPost on 27 July 2026 concerning XPENG’s renewed Australian operations.
The article states that TrueEV experienced funding problems, made no vehicle purchases for more than a year and failed to fulfil orders for more than 450 vehicles.
These Claims Are Disputed
They appear to reflect allegations advanced by XPENG, but the article does not attribute them to XPENG, properly present TrueEV’s position or make clear that the underlying circumstances are contested issues before the Federal Court of Australia.
The Chronology Matters
TrueEV entered into arrangements to launch, establish and distribute XPENG vehicles in Australia in 2024.
Australian deliveries commenced later that year.
TrueEV’s position is that, by approximately February or March 2025—less than one year after the parties entered into their agreement and only several months after customer deliveries commenced—XPENG had begun taking steps toward establishing its own direct Australian operation and circumventing TrueEV’s contractual role.
TrueEV understands that Hidesuke Takesue was engaged by XPENG during this period. CnEVPost reports that he was subsequently appointed COO of XPENG’s Australian operation as XPENG moved from an exclusive distribution arrangement to a direct and multi-dealer model.
TrueEV considers the timing of these actions highly relevant.
The dispute cannot fairly be characterised as a simple case of TrueEV failing to purchase vehicles over an extended period. TrueEV alleges that XPENG’s conduct affected vehicle supply, commercial confidence, dealer arrangements and TrueEV’s ability to continue operating under the agreed model.
These issues are now before the Court.
The Claim Concerning More Than 450 Vehicles
The article also states that TrueEV failed to fulfil orders for more than 450 vehicles.
TrueEV strongly disputes that characterisation.
The existence and status of the alleged orders, whether valid and authorised purchase orders existed, the circumstances in which vehicles were manufactured and responsibility for those vehicles are matters in dispute.
TrueEV’s position is that the vehicles referred to were manufactured for the Australian market without corresponding active and authorised orders from TrueEV.
At the same time, XPENG had promoted the imminent arrival of the facelifted G6 but did not provide TrueEV with supply of that vehicle or a reliable timetable under which TrueEV could offer it to Australian customers.
TrueEV says this created significant uncertainty for customers, dealers and the Australian business.
It is therefore inaccurate and incomplete to state simply that TrueEV failed to fulfil more than 450 vehicle orders.
Disputed Allegations Should Not Be Reported As Fact
TrueEV respects the role of the media and welcomes informed reporting concerning the Australian electric-vehicle market.
However, allegations made by one party to active litigation should be clearly attributed and appropriately qualified.
They should not be presented as established facts while the very issues underlying those allegations remain before the Court.
TrueEV has written to CnEVPost requesting that the article be corrected to:
– attribute the allegations to XPENG;
– acknowledge that TrueEV disputes them;
– include TrueEV’s position;
– explain that the supply and order issues are before the Federal Court; and
– correct the misleading characterisation of the more than 450 vehicles.
TrueEV remains committed to ensuring that the history of XPENG’s establishment in Australia is reported accurately, fairly and with the appropriate context.
Legal note: The matters referred to above include issues that are the subject of ongoing Federal Court proceedings. TrueEV’s statements represent its position in relation to the dispute. No final judicial determination has yet been made regarding the contested matters described.
