% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • justice_47 justice_47 Jan 31, 2014 4:44 AM Flag


    I am not a lawyer, but I suppose the Court will not accept an objector because he said something based only on his intuition, or only because he finds the settlement price too small. It's rather logical he must have a very good reason to influence the Hearing.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You have the wrong end of the stick!

      You will just have to wait till it becomes public
      Its going to be an interesting three weeks.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Joel is also presenting a 30 item document as exhibit. What the 30 items are have not appeared on Pacer yet.

      • 3 Replies to murray1239
      • Hi mur ... I believe the Court may have an issue with the form the objection is being delivered. It is one thing to simply raise your hand and object. Any shareholder has a right to object. This could lead to a binding legal agreement such as a notarized document stating ABAT will do comply with the will of the objector. Since the objection was delivered with a request to buy-out shares then a legal binding agreement at this point becomes unlikely. One can not be forced into a legal binding agreement, it's the law.
        So what could or what may happen? ABAT could initiate an agreement themselves. The way I see it ABAT can take the long road to full trial in which ABAT could be found fully clear of payment to anyone. Or ABAT could buy the objectors stake in the company. Or ABAT can simply meet the objectors demand during next weeks litigation.
        Others on this message board have inferred ABAT must prove something to someone. This is incorrect, ABAT is defending against the plaintiff allegations. It is the plaintiff who must prove his complaint. Last word from the Court is that the complaints really look ba for ABAT, but they may be false. This statement was documented in August 2012. This is the reason for expedited discovery with no request for delay granted. The law firm representing the plaintiff requests settlement. The settlement is a token payment for the law firm's time spent in Court with next to nothing for 2010 shareholders.
        Here's a thought you you. Why, if ABAT has done nothing wrong, are they liable to pay anything to anyone? After 2 1/2 years NOTHING

      • Obviously it's too early to know whether McMahon will ultimately let it in, but wouldn't it be an absolute hoot if it turned out that the only documentary evidence read into the record came from an objecting shareholder?

      • =Joel is also presenting a 30 item document as exhibit.

        The odds of the judge not approving the settlement just went up. Joel is in a unique position to make a "compelling" argument against approving a settlement that is so grossly inadequate on its face.

        Joel, don't forget to throw in there that even excluding Chinese assets the settlement is highly inadequate. Foo paid $910,000 cash for his Flushing, NY property. He pulled equity out last August while negotiating the settlement. Any Title Company that didn't catch he was a party in a lawsuit should be liable for allowing that mortgage to go through. There is also the Beyond E-Tech 49% stake. that should be turned over to the court to liquidate and add to the settlement pool.

        I believe the system is broken. Firms like Pomerantz no longer seek justice for clients... they seek the easiest money from settlements that are a farce. Tell the judge that if Pomerantz took the case and they believe they have such a strong case, they should be compelled to complete it. If ABAT believes they are truly innocent of all allegations, they should be compelled to clear their name to the benefit of shareholders. This case demands a proper resolution. Let both parties state their evidence, let the identity(ies) of VVR be revealed and let the chips fall where they may.

        That is the only fair outcome to ALL parties.

    • = It's rather logical he must have a very good reason to influence the Hearing.

      I believe somebody who took the time and expense to actually travel to China and has had a personal conversation with Foo will have a great deal of influence. I believe that while it is not probable, there is a very real possibility the judge throws out the settlement as being inadequate based on the degree of the transgressions.

      Why are you worried about objectors now? You said that it was already a done deal.

0.0410.000(0.00%)Dec 30 3:47 PMEST