In recent days, there have been reports from netizens that the Super Bird Bureau, another UBP shopping mall in Shanghai, has ceased operating and was seen with pet cats in it when passing by. The netizens stated that they were concerned about their health.
Photos previously posted by netizens indicate that a piece of the Superbird Bureau was set aside at the door of the Shanghai Centrist Business Management Company Ltd. According to the bulletin, the Company Management Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Superbird Bureau”) rented part of the grounds on the first and second floors of the mall to operate the branded “Superbird Bureau” pet shop. The current “Superbird Bureau” has outstanding rent and constitutes a breach of contract.
On the afternoon of 16 July, the Superbird Bureau sent a statement to journalists on the placement of living animals in the Superbird Bureau (a Pentagon and a town shop) which stated that, as of 16 July 2025, the living cats and dogs, the reptiles, the exotics and the living birds had been properly housed. Placement channels include, inter alia, individual adoptions by employees, peer compliance acquisitions and individual consumer purchases. As a result of the above-mentioned placement process, there are no living animals left at the Super Bird's Pentagon in another town shop.
On the afternoon of 16 July, journalists visited the Superbird Board on the ground at another UBP shopping mall in Pentagon. Journalists found at the scene that the front door of the shop had been fenced off, that live animals had not been seen in the shop, that pet cabinets, interactive areas and beauty-cleaning areas were empty, and that staff were cleaning up the leftover items and equipment.
A staff member in charge of the on-site clean-up told journalists that some of the pets had been purchased by consumers themselves or adopted by their employees in love, while the rest had been sent to the shop of the shareholders, where no animals had been left behind. When the journalists asked why the shop had closed down, the staff member claimed to have been the result of a “contract dispute” in which the customer who had previously processed the membership card and the full value card had contacted them for refund.