The Second Amended Complaint stated that ABAT lied about its distributorships. "Plaintiffs' investigation has uncovered that many of these companies identified by ABAT either appear to be fictitious or have mininal business. . ." For instance, a search for stated distributor "Eco Style Di" in Italy reveals no such company. If you google Eco Style Di +ABAT you will see all the accusations in the various complaints. The evidence here is irrefutable. ABAT makes up names of fake distributorships. VVR said so, Prescience said so and Pomerantz addresses this in the Second Amended Complaint. There is no Eco Style Di and this is one of many verifiable falsehoods of ABAT.
=There is no Eco Style Di and this is one of many verifiable falsehoods of ABAT.
I have taken a different stance on these distributor matters. ABAT brought the problems on themselves, but not all of them are necessarily proven lies. This is an area that needed to be clarified through discovery. VVR, Prescience, Kerrisdale etc. showed exactly what searches they performed and what the results were. They did not "lie" as the delusional claim. They searched for what ABAT listed as distributors. It isn't their fault if ABAT spelled some of them wrong or if they were really a different name than what ABAT disclosed. They were 100% correct with what their searches came up with. ABAT would have had the opportunity to present sales figures to these distributors and explain why the names they disclosed in their filings differed from the names they later claimed were the actual ones. I couldn't care less about the he said, she said about the distributors when there is so much evidence on the self-dealing and related party transactions. That is what matters and not whether ABAT claimed they had a distributor named Tinterparts that was really Interparts. The fact remains that ABAT is clueless and sloppy and listed distributors that did not exist when searching for them according to how they were listed on their filings.
This was not the meat of the case, but the delusional keep wanting to come back to it. They don't want to acknowledge things like claiming to "own 100% of the capital stock" in a subsidiary only to have to pay $20M for it in the future to Foo and his partners. They don't want to discuss another subsidiary where the seller said he thought he was selling it to ABAT for $1M and Foo's name was on the purchase agreement only to see shareholders pay another $20M for it. The judge said, "the appearance of fraud is inescapable". They don't want to discuss why a subsidiary is still listed as a VIE with assets "in the process of being transferred" for many years.
ABAT make up distributors and create fakeness. The VVR report say only could find 3 or 4, some say only 100 scooters sold. The Prescience confirming this, but they say 5 of 11. So ABAT make up 4-7 distributors. Other shareholders try to validate by eco style di and Motorini Zanani. how can they be one and same?
VVR report say "What are the odds of a “coincidence” involving several of Wuxi’s purported distributors having no websites or search results?"
They have no results so no exist. Without distributors how they can sell 90,000 scooters and bikes in 2010. That is answer to question of $49,000,000. Impossible to sell so much for company of only 170 peoples. Unless they selling some in China and many many parts too, like motors and counted that in wrong category.
I say maybe 3 distributors existing, but many so many in China that no have English names yet.
"They don't want to discuss why a subsidiary is still listed as a VIE with assets "in the process of being transferred" for many years."
I can answer that one. Because the law doesn't provide the proper means to have these subs listed as VIE's OR fully owned subsidiaries. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Some companies go ahead anyway, and list them as 100% owned subs but have to disclose the fact that they didn't get approval from all relevant parties in China, and probably won't for the forseeable future.
The fact is that ABAT said Eco Style Di was one of their "customers' when in fact no such entity exists. How do you explain that smart boy? If you google it you will see all the places where this "non-sensical" name shows how far they went to create fake customers.