While the quoted decision solidifies the position of a foreign-jurisdiction appointed receiver, it does not address the risks with VIE structures. In my understanding, the case decided by the Chinese Supreme Court involved a wholly foreign-owned enterprise. Quoted from the report:
"Thumb Env-Tech is a Chinese wholly-owned subsidiary of Sino-Environment Tech, a company registered in Singapore (now in liquidation). The Singaporean liquidator (the former judicial manager) had dismissed the former management board of Thumb Env-Tech and appointed the insolvency firm’s own managing partner as the new chairman of the board of directors (and legal representative). "
With respect to VIE-structures, the question remains whether Chinese courts would recognise the right of the WFOE contractually "controlling" the VIE to, for instance, re-appoint the management of the VIE. A respected large US law firm published (in 2011) a balanced article on the risks of VIE structures. You find it when you google "Roberts Hall VIE structures". If the VIE structure would hold, Mr. Seiden could take control of the VIE. It will probably take years (and patience) to find out.
Lets address your first point:
The supreme court of China expressly stated that a foreign owned entity has rights to solvency of its assets. Read the article.
Could be true for sure.
third point which you call second point:
Seize them, monetize them and return the money to shareholders similar to what has been documented in the ZSTN case unless you think Robert Seiden is a liar. Hmm former federal prosecutor?
Even I know they were a long operating company before going public in the US.
I still haven't purchased much stock at all in this company. I am watching this carefully to see if there is a potential huge opportunity. Also, I am watching it to see how it affects other Chinese RTO, "SCAMS." By SCAMS, I mean companies that raised American Dollars just to go dark and bring their operations back to China.
Well, first off, with SCEI what the US shareholders "own" is a HK shell corp... and nobody really knows what that shell corp has been doing these past few years since the company stopped reporting. (And that's assuming you even believe what they reported when they were filing with the SEC.)
So the directors of the HK corp could have easily deemed the Chinese subsidiary worthless, and sold it to Ren for 1RMB years ago... totally legal... and total mystery to the US shareholders.
Second... assuming the US Receiver does take action to gain control of Wiscon Holdings in HK, and then gets access to the Chinese subsidiary corps... what would you possibly expect to find there...???
Reams of cash "audited and verified" with a fine-tooth comb by those internationally acclaimed accounting experts at Thornhill??? Based on that outdated alleged report that was commissioned by the company's own US attorneys... and never released to the shareholders? Oh, gee, that's reliable!
And if you hope for money in China... does that also mean you believe this company was once profitably selling tons of very wet coal dust for a 40% mark-up to use for heating? Really???
You are dupes, dupes, dupes... and now you're being duped into spending more money on attempting to make it look like there is magical hidden value here (and my guess is the only "value" is that of luring in more dupes to run up the US share price so you can unload).
Even more importantly, the Court expressly recognized the power of the Singaporean liquidator to represent the parent company in liquidation. As far as the foreign liquidator’s powers are concerned, the Court ruled that the law of the place of the registered office of the relevant company is applicable.
The key word is MIGHT:
"From a political perspective, this case might mark the beginning of a more open attitude to grant access to court hearings to foreigners. As reported by Chinese newspapers, this was the first hearing of the Court that foreign diplomats were explicitly invited to attend."
Hopefully if does - we will see many similar cases in the future. However, since Sino got so much press, the Chinese may be treating it much differently than they would a no name company. Only time will tell.
Google it. Interesting facts that contradict the idea that shareholders don't own anything but foreign shell corp.
Who knows - he may be able to bribe the right people in China?
It's a long shot - but it could work...
And a recovery of 20% or so on the dollar is better than nothing.
But it's going to be a long hard drive.
I just click on the thumbs down and then click on Ignore----first thing I do every day on this site.