Did you notice our new friend shares the same two first initials with the beloved Receiver -- could this be some sort of cosmic portent?!?
Hey AV and MZ, that guy is a spammer. Just take a look at his posts.
Maybe he bought at 10 cents and wants to dump his shares now for a 400% gain.
You make my point.
The law firm pays the outside firm, csi. They are sucking up your assets. Seiden is in it because he can make money coming and going as the lawyer and the investigator, and he doesn't have to leave anything for you.
Do you think csi is giving a discounted rate to scei holders? Billable. Hours.
Let me address your point number 1....
Are you ignorant? Robert Seiden owns CSI!!!!!!! Read Much??????
1. Csi, the named agent. Read much?
2. Scei has no employees. We agree.
3-5, so, define significant, since he didn't.
Ren is better at this than you. So is Seiden. Maybe this will get resolved in time for Christmas, and you and Ren can get some lumps of coal to liquidate.
Because it cannot be viewed electronically, I do not know what is in it. It does not appear to be sealed but to get a copy, one would have to order a paper copy via mail.
1. False statement by you, what outside firm was hired? Besides, when doing an investigation in a foreign country you might need to hire consultants
2. SCEI the holding company does not directly have employees. Its subsidiaries do. Misleading statement. That is like saying all Chinese companies traded in the US have no employees.
3, 4 and 5: Yea right. That is an ignorant comment. the receiver carries a lot of liability and he cannot put out specific figures.
6. Really, this is a press release, not a report to the court. I would just say you are either trying to mislead people or are just ignorant.
7. Again with the negativity. This is a Press Release to let people know his GENERAL activities.
Then you flat out say HE INTENTIONALLY DECIEVED. You bashers just lie to make your side of the argument.
whats your point, at least there is something happening -- just wait n watch
You lose a bit or gain a lot..
Yes. The receiver will make such a statement if it serves his purposes. Also, it isn't only what the statement says, but what it doesn't say. Let's parse:
1. Receiver didn't do the work himself or by his employees. He hired an outside firm, which is motivated to earn money by "looking for some stuff." Who knows how much this cost, but whatever the cost, the receiver believes it will be covered by an amount he can recover.
2. SCEI has no employees. Perhaps some of their Chinese based factories employ some coal crushers and deliverers, etc.
3. What does the word "significant" mean? If there was a cash amount, why not say the amount, instead of describing it as "significant?"
4. Same as #3, but for sales.
5. Same as 3 and 4, but for assets.
6. What filings, interviews, audit reports, official records and "reliable sources?"
7. Why does it not mention anything about debt, profit, cash flow, etc? Perhaps the business is operating in a zero profit environment? Maybe they paid out all their cash on prepaid coal and Thailand business/vacations.
It doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone things a former federal prosecutor would intentionally deceive. What IS clear from the press release is that it is a hype piece with no substance. He didn't cite 1 piece of data, anywhere in the PR, NOT ONE!. That's crazy, unless the goal is to get people to start chasing rainbows.
"The Receiver, through his agent CSI, has discovered from extensive research and investigation in China that remains ongoing that SCEI is in fact a viable entity with many employees, and significant sales, cash, and assets. This has been corroborated based on Company filings with the Chinese government, interviews, audit reports, official records checks and other reliable sources."
Do you think a former federal prosecutor, a receiver under court orders and an owner of a very successful worldwide business would make such is statement if it were not totally 100% true?
The score is already around a million to 2, so a touchdown here certainly won't be enough to make up the deficit. BTW, 4th quarter,
Interesting choice of topics today: Who's right, who's wrong, who is a better debater. Loving all the little digs and gotchas.
Let us not forget, however, that this company had some very serious publicly reported problems before it went off the exchange.
The company lost a factory which was seized in another company's bankruptcy.
The company reported that it was having trouble competing with mom-and-pop slurry shops.
The company wanted to buy a coal mine to control for fluctuations in coal prices (a bad idea as there is an opportunity cost in buying coal cheaply from yourself when you could sell it for more on the open market, and when coal is cheapest, it is a truly rare slurry manufacture that can mine coal efficiently)
The company had to stop producing coal in the daytime because the cost of electricity was too high.
The company failed to acquire or merge with Crown energy.
The company was sending people to Thailand on slurry boondoggles.
All of these reports came straight from Ren and his staff, and I'm not making it up. So, for shareholders, what does it all mean?
Well, back in the day, when the company purported to be operating as a real reporting business, the most reliable element of the company's reporting was that there would always be some enormous downside surprise, in every report, without fail.
Bulls and Bears on this board at that time would argue over whether Ren was a criminal or an idiot. No one EVER suggested that Ren was a strong business operator.
So, here we are in the fall of 2014, and analogous to football, the bulls on the board have got a couple of first downs and are charging toward the goal. Will Ren make a stand on the 1 yard line, or will the offense get into the end zone?
Let's say Alain et al reach the goal line. Then what? Will you have acquired 6 slurry trucks, a promissory note on some coal, a receipt for a slurry factory that was sold in a bankruptcy auction, some payroll debt, etc?
Unfortunately we've already seen that play. All US investors get is what the insurance policy Loeb holds will pay. Which in past instances is just a few cents on the dollar.
I see you are back to lying like always. Last week you said that Ren had four months to steal the money since the appointment of Seiden. Now, today, you are saying as a matter of FACT that the money was stolen a long time ago.
Keep in mind all readers.... Asianvest will make up any lie to convince you to sell your shares. There is no evidence of stolen money. Only an unverified report by a short seller. Secondly, Thornhill did do a cash verification which included much more than some faxed copies of bank statements.
No, if I were trying to get the max for the shareholders, I'd give up on what was stolen by the Chinese (long gone + Ren not likely to fork over much) -- and focus instead on going after Loeb, both to reclaim all the fees they earned, plus see if there were actionable grounds that they had knowingly aided in the structure of a stock fraud. I think the little fiasco with the promised paper CVR was a good case in point. Besides, Loeb has funds, and a reputation to protect -- unlike Thornhill, Weinberg, etc.