On 9/17/2012 most of the allegations were dismissed and only two allegations remained in the Court. Judge Mac Mahon said Abat showed good faith, when the relationship of the VIE was clarified. Judge Mac Mahon said there would be a benign explanation for the Shenzhen ZQ transaction. Judge Mac Mahon said that it is far from clear that the plaintiffs would have prevailed on the "inflated statements" issue at trial. Abat met most if not all contingencies, according to a letter submitted to the docket, wich shows Abat has been complying fully with Pomerantz requests.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
=On 9/17/2012 most of the allegations were dismissed and only two allegations remained in the Court.
Another PROVEN LIE! There has never been a single allegation "dismissed" by the court! Out of the 4 allegations the Plaintiffs chose to raise with the court, it only took 2 of them for the judge to deny the motion to dismiss. She CLEARLY referenced that the other two were still in play, but she didn't even need to look at them to go forward with the case as the first two were "well-pleaded" and "compelling". Her exact words:
"Plaintiffs address only four specific misrepresentations made in the course of this alleged scheme to support their securities fraud claims. As I can sustain the Complaint against a motion to dismiss by discussing only two of those four purported misrepresentations, I need not reach, and do not discuss, whether the misrepresentations are adequately pleaded. No one should assume that, by not reaching them I have thrown them out of the case; I have not."
You see. She specifically addressed the fact that just because it only took two of the allegations for her to reach a decision, it did not mean the other two were thrown out. She simply didn't need to even look at them to confirm in her mind the case had merits and should move forward.
It is PROVEN you were lied to once more. For the newbies... therealfacts, justice, logic, rwmmail, goalis100000 and a half dozen more aliases are all the same conman. He has such a unique style and abbreviates words like nobody else in the world. It is amazing he is so stupid he thinks he is fooling anybody.
=Judge Mac Mahon said Abat showed good faith, when the relationship of the VIE was clarified.
LOL! Show me - no she didn't!
=Judge Mac Mahon said there would be a benign explanation for the Shenzhen ZQ transaction.
=Judge Mac Mahon said that it is far from clear that the plaintiffs would have prevailed on the "inflated statements" issue at trial.
YOU ARE BEING CONNED! VERIFY!
you should put all the quotes in their entirety so that you are not a conman too!!! put the whole balanced picture if you want to be believed on this board. .
for example. . . .
from the docket
"If there is a benign explanation for this series of transactions, Defendants are free to present it as a defense on the merits; but at this stage the allegations of the Complaint sufficiently allege false statements and material omissions"
So while you consider it an open and shut case, the Judge, does not. And you are not the Judge in case you need to be reminded.
The Shenzhen situation has not at all been thoroughly documented to be a sham. In fact, the Judge said there could be a totally benign explanation for the Shenzhen situation and in fact Exhibits 19, 20, 21 show the situation. Pomerantz moved to strike and the Judge agreed, but said they could be represented in trial. Pomerantz opted not to go to trial, so we will never know.
The question now is regarding possible counter action against the group attacking, then short selling, ABAT shareholders stock in March 2011. The Court is on record as stating the allegations presented and made public in March 2011 are causation of steep decline in share value. And "they (the allegations) may be false".
It's my opinion the Court opened the door to ABAT in August of 2011 to request Summary Judgment to end the legal action. The downside for ABAT at that time is that this request on their part would relinquish control of the company to a U.S. Court which is against China policy. Especially if ABAT is a supplier to the military.
One must keep in mind that although ABAT is registered as "American" it must follow China policy to be eligible for current and future green benefits provided by the Chinese government. The grand opening of the new battery manufacturing facility in Dongguan China (Dec 2011) was attended by government officials and military. A picture speaks 1000 words.
Google: ABAT grand opening Dongguan
Sentiment: Strong Buy
=The question now is regarding possible counter action against the group attacking, then short selling, ABAT shareholders stock in March 2011.
They could have counter-sued from DAY ONE. There was no basis to do so. YOU or ANY shareholder could have sued VVR, Prescience, Kerrisdale etc. at any time. No attorney would take it as there is NO BASIS. Quit lying, twisty. There is also a little thing called the statute of limitations.
=The Court is on record as stating the allegations presented and made public in March 2011 are causation of steep decline in share value.
Again with that nonsense? It was shown to you what the legal term "causation" means and how it needed to be proven for the case to continue. Causation does not mean guilt. They REPORTED the transgressions and were not the perpetrators.
=It's my opinion the Court opened the door to ABAT in August of 2011 to request Summary Judgment to end the legal action.
THAT IS A BLATANT LIE! I just showed you that there was a motion to dismiss and the judge denied it calling the suit "well-pleaded", "compelling" and saying it was "inescapable" that they acted with fraudulent intent based on the evidence.
=The downside for ABAT at that time is that this request on their part would relinquish control of the company to a U.S. Court which is against China policy.
Nonsense! It is in a US court now. Amazing how stupid you are.
=Especially if ABAT is a supplier to the military.
LMFAO! It isn't the US military. Anybody can confirm they aren't registered to do so. That information is public record.
=One must keep in mind that although ABAT is registered as "American" it must follow China policy
Huh? They must follow the rules they agreed to under Delaware Law and their SEC Registration. If they want to go back to China, they are more than welcome to. They already have abandoned their US ties. Foo made that clear when he pulled all the equity out of his NY property.
The pumpers are getting desperate over Joel.