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

Yongye International, AŞ Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Mar 23, 2011 6:52 PM Flag

    Lawsuit against libel?

    ddbikessams: What rumors, specifically, are you referring to?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • EVERYTHING that was posted in the article today was an unsubstantiated opinion of the author. These claims have been clearly refuted by the company once already and have not been made by ANYone except Bezek. The damage to the share price has been immense and there is no proof whatsoever that there is anything truly wrong - only one individual's barely articulate ramblings. That is vastly more criminal and lawsuit-worthy than a company honestly missing quarterly estimates and having the share price slaughtered then being sued by the vampire lawfirms.

      • 2 Replies to ddbikessamsara
      • Bezek is clearly motivated and his conclusions flawed. He is careful though to refer to company data as the basis for these conclusions which would make a case against him difficult. The fact that people act on his ill conceived nonsense and give airtime to SA is the real crime.

        For me, the fundamentals are still in tact and the future looks good. With any Chinese small cap there are risks but I believe. Yongye to be one of the best opportunities out there today and I see this as a buying opp.

      • ddbikessams: Everything? Then you should have no problem citing just one rumor! What one specific rumor in the article do you consider libelous? Please post it here!

        What claims have been refuted? What if I told you that I ALSO am asking for the names of Customer A, Customer B, Customer C, etc? That makes us two.

        So, why would there be a damage to the share price if it was just that individual's barely articulate ramblings? What would be the damage to the share price if YONG turns out to be another CCME?

        Claiming that something is criminal does not make it so. Therefore, again, what one specific rumor in the article do you consider libelous?