Since it seems the company representatives in China have pretty much abandoned the US shell corp, I'm guessing if someone asks the judge to appoint a Receiver, and the company doesn't bother to respond, it will be approved.
There has never been an office, employees, or assets here. Just a mailing address at a corporation Registered Agent.
Does the Receiver need to pay the fees to reinstate the Nevada business license before transacting business? I don't know.
They could contact Loeb & Thornhill & Weinberg to try to learn some more details of the corporation, and maybe get hold of some old lists of assets and maybe domestic bank info (if there is one). But my guess it Thornhill will say they were hired by Loeb; and Loeb and Weinberg may well claimed to have been hired by subsidiary companies directly in HK or China, and therefore refuse to release info to a US corp representative without authorization from the Chinese.
In my opinion, this will come up short once they try to get beyond any assets in the US... all paths to China lead through Wiscon Holdings in Hong Kong -- and that means confronting Gareth Tang... and that, I think, will be the end of that.
(If they had any real conviction, they would attempt to recover prior fees lavished on Loeb, Weinberg, Thornhill, R&R, Axiom Capital, etc.)
You are aware, I presume, that the latest standing financial statement signed off on by the public Auditors is for the year 2010. So for the past 40 months, when no audited statements are available, pretty much anything could have gone on with the moneys raised in the PIPE and secondary offerings... you just have no clue what was done... and silly to assume a company that ignores its shareholders does so to benefit them.
Well, actually, the shorts do "pay" a dividend...
When you short a share, you borrow 1 and sell it. So there is still an owner of 1 share (whom unknowingly has lent it to you), plus a new owner of 1 share that you sold the borrowed share to. (((That increases the pool of shares held long by 1.)))
So when the company pays out a dividend, the short also is debited for a dividend to make up for the payment due on the second share.
Delaware involves a different company, and different situation. (And as I've pointed out before, the people here who now toss good money after bad for legal action are the very same people whom, dare I say, were foolish enough to have "invested" in the first place -- and then continue to hold after the stock was delisted. These people have not exhibited prudent investment sense -- I wouldn't trust their judgement as an indication of anything more than fragile egos.)
Besides, there already was a shareholder suit... the insurance company settled.
My problem is not with shareholder action -- I wish there had been a bit more of that a few years ago when it would have made a difference (not in terms of recompense, but in terms of warning off more potential investors from losing their funds in a scam). I find the current shareholder actions to be naive and delusional, to the extent they A: suggest there are some assets in the US that might be recovered, or that there were ever meaningful assets in China (other than the funds raised long ago by the PIPE and secondary offerings); and B: implicitly denies this was a carefully planned out scam from the get go, and all the moneys long gone. (And I guess, C: that it willfully overlooks taking legal or regulatory actions against the US-based firms that were paid big fees to sucker in gullible investors and guide the Chinese how to avoid punishment.)
(There was a sorry guy posting here for a while who was adamant he would not lose his "investment"
if there turned out to be fraud -- because he convinced himself he could always sue for damages. Poor, poor guy. I pity him even though he was a bit rude to me.)
I also have a bit of a sore spot for people who have babbled this nonsense about legal action for some years now on this message board... with the clear insinuation that it means there must be some hidden value in the stock today. There isn't. So you guys can stop pumping a worthless shell.
In their most recently filed quarter (Q3-14):
Gold sales = $1.8m
Lead & Zinc sales = $7.8m
Wake up guy... the company's (reported) sales are mostly from silver and lead. Gold is a footnote.
A play on silver & gold prices???
Don't you mean silver and lead! (Since Silvercorp's reported revenues from lead and zinc are many times the sales claimed from gold.)
I'm not sure how the "strength of the US dollar" is a risk of holding silver bullion. (Getting robbed at gun-point is a risk of holding metals... as is: hurting your back while hiding your hoard... not being able to convert bullion to dollars at a favorable rate... needing to flee the country with only what's in your pockets... having a mudslide wash away your home safe... mistaking a gold coin for a quarter and tossing it in a fountain... these are all risks of holding physical metals. And if you're holding lead bars, then lead-poisoning would also be a risk.)
But the risks of owning depository shares in a Canadian corporation which in turn controls some off-shore companies, which have some shared partnership arrangements with Chinese affiliates that operate mining-leaseholds... well there are multiple risks there. Real risks. (Not the least of which is, that if the folks running the show in China, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason other than greed, decide to keep any and all assets which happen to be located in said China -- and tell their "partners" at the Canadian corporation to take a long dive down a short mine... well, guess what? Not much the investors can do about that. That's the kind of risk that would keep me up at night.)
Yeah, well, pity they don't go after all the US-based professional firms that reaped huge fees for selling this stock to investors -- and providing the "assurances" and "audits" that it was ever anything other than a scam... and pointing undeserved blame at short-sellers (who took the real risks and were the main heroes, in my opinion).
I'm just a spectator too.
But, I've been spectating... and prior to that, participating... for several years now... and I'm not sure it's soooo interesting -- more like the inevitable conclusion that was presaged by the company's improbable reverse-merger... and subsequent actions, or lack-of thereof.
I don't expect much to change after April 16th.
Are you trying to pump up the share price? (Because I can't see any new information from the last time you mentioned the court date on the 16th... and what could possibly happen of import? They could appoint a Receiver... who will then have the privilege of paying lots of fees to attempt to reinstate the Nevada business license and locate any bank accounts in the US. The communications with Gareth Tang at the HK holding corp Wiscon should be entertaining... maybe Jim, or whomever gets appointed will get a nice HK trip out of it.)
I'll add, that when the 13-D group filed its unnecessary, but testosterone-laden, form disclosing holdings... what also came to light was the purchase patterns of several of the members. It seems they were buying up their shares for cents... long after the stock was delisted... and in combination with contemporaneous posts on this message board -- it was clear to me and others that some of the 13-D'ers were not fooled by the company (I'm not sure they even knew anything about the company, or cared), but rather they thought they could force a so-called "short-squeeze" in the stock.
Of course, I call that delusional. Real amateur-hour adolescent kind of "investing."
...and I guess they took umbrage at being called-out on a silly, failed, greed-fest. And it takes a lot of hubris to buy shares in a stock *after* it has been delisted for non-compliance (among other things) and then join a class-action lawsuit for having been "deceived."
No, I didn't say what you insinuate I said... if you want to see what I actually said, read my post above.
Second, the post from Jim refers to the formation and actions of a group of SCEI shareholders who formed an association in order to be able to publicly file an unrequired form 13-D reporting their ownership stake. Those individuals are also participating in the most-recent class action suit, in Nevada, but they are not the lead plaintiff.
What I am ridiculing, is the expense, and expectations of the 13-D group in their prior (and presumably failed) efforts to get the corporation to file statements again with the SEC and communicate with shareholders. (What they seemed particularly eager for was communication on how the company planned to "maximize shareholder value.") I further ridicule the notion of bringing yet another class action suit against what is (obviously to many) a dark, non-compliant, and presumably valueless shell-corp.
Because all this bravado posturing and legal tactics is premised on the conceit there there was, and still is, a viable operating coal-slurry corporation behind it, with assets to recover. And complete denial that the company was established from the start as a fraud to dupe gullible and greedy US investors into believing the hype... and that the funds from the stock offering are by now long gone.
(Because, in my opinion, some of the investors have big losses and bigger egos -- apparently very fragile egos -- and would rather spend more money to prove they were not naively swindled, but rather are sophisticated types who don't self-identify as victims. And in doing this war-dance, they are forced to overlook the US-based firms who earned big fees to be complicit in presenting SCEI as a legitimate corporation for investing in.)
jimsutter10 - Jun 25, 2013,11:49AM: "...Now, my only concern is that SCEI become current with the SEC, and transparent with shareholders. The alias was used to protect my identity with the company. As of next Tuesday, I could very well be a vocal basher of Mr. REN. We will see what happens."
(And just who do *you* think you are to belittle users on a public stock message board who want to discuss the stock and certain shareholder's legal actions (???). Simply because you choose to keep your actions as secret as possible, that's not a reason others should not speculate on your motives, or the likely outcomes.)
(((And I'm glad I didn't *fool* you into thinking a non-filing, delisted, non-communicative, china-based stock might be an unsuitable "investment"... glad to hear you will hold on tight and fork over more legal fees, until the bitter end when you find out *if* you were fooled by Ren.)))
Ah, okay... fare enough. Thanks for the clarification.
I think I'll wait for Jim to voluntarily post his statement here -- to demonstrate his commitment to that much-ballyhooed public transparency and disclosure of everything associated with the Shareholders Mutual Support and Encouragement Group Working for the Betterment of All Enlightened Beings and Not Their Own Self Interests.
I almost want to buy a single share of the stock -- just so I can start getting the update mailings once a receiver is appointed.
Hey alsense -- was that an April fool's jest, or did you really get a copy of the court filing?
Can you just summarize the gist in a paragraph or two?
I thought Jim's whole thing was to insist always that Sino Clean is (still) an honest, legit, clean-energy coal-sludge financial behemoth that was blindsided by unscrupulous short-sellers who defamed their pristine reputation in the marketplace and made them bitter about American shareholders in general. ...and that every seemingly disreputable event -- ceasing to file with the SEC, "going dark" to shareholders, allowing the stock to be delisted, issuing bla-bla ra-ra statements on their Chinese website, etc. etc. was only an attempt to "protect" all the assets from lawsuits and eventually reward the "honest" shareholders (who did not ever say anything bad about the company or try to sue).
...and I guess the reason Jim is now part of an investor suit is *not* because he thinks the company is a fraud and has committed any crimes -- but merely as a gentle way to encourage Ren & Co. to rejoin in most happy union with the ever-fawning shareholders who remain faithful to the very end -- and only want to maximize share-value by again reporting all the profits from selling toxic coal-water glop as a smiley-face alternative energy source.
So I'm really curious to know what exactly he had to tell the court. (I think Jim has former business partners in China -- maybe they went to visit the operations in person?)
Good, I'm gladdened to hear you bought more at $2.01... I think you deserve it! I do.
You know, a funny thing happened on this thread -- when I commended you on this lead post (for finally writing a comment based on facts, even if it was a repost of news I had already stated)... you know what occurred?!? I got nine thumb-down votes for praising you.
Weird hunh? (I sorta thought everyone had me on ignore, but I guess they find my missives too captivating to miss.)
Do you think the thumb-downs are for saying something positive about you? Or just a thumb-down for endorsing fact-based on-topic posts in general?
Regardless, nice to know we are both now proponents of following the insiders' lead. (Speaking of lead, if silver prices keep falling with respect to the base metals, they may need to rename this corporation Leadcorp, in anticipation of the mine revenues becoming primarily lead-leaning.)
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. (Me, sarcastic?!?)
I think you and I had an exchange about short selling -- where you postulated the much of the recent decline was from new short positions being opened, and I expressed my opinion that it was not likely to be the case... but that in either case we would see the answer reflected in the reported short interest. ...And it seems you were correct, about 15% of the volume in the first half of March was due to new short positions.
Be that as it may, if you are honest in your postings... I don't really think you should take a short position -- ever. Anyone who would invest 25% of their money in a stock like this in the first place, and then wants to trade short for quick gains, does not properly understand the risks involved. I'd suggest you stay out of individual stocks altogether and stay with broad index ETFs if you want to invest... at least until you've learned more about the risks. Maybe use 5% of your funds as a learning exercise for the next few years, if you must... but be prepared to under-perform the market.
Anyhow, good luck.
Wow! Looks like some of you guys were right -- short interest *has* increased sharply of late.
For the reporting period ending March 14, short interest increased by about 2.6 million shares, to nearly 12 million short (out of 170 million shares outstanding).
During the same two-week period, the total trade volume was about 19 million* shares, so that's substantial.
((* I always get a bit confused on this, maybe someone here can clarify, but since the short interest is based on settled trades -- I *think* the comparable trade volume is for Feb 26 - Mar 11. But in any case, it's in the ballpark.))
I wonder what is driving all this new shorting???
A cynical explanation might be that certain Insiders, with large holdings of restricted shares listed on TSX, could be shorting on NYSE as a hedge. Can't wait for the next report!
A pittance? Or a portents?
An independent Director sells 31,000 shares this year... at 5-year lows... I'm taking notice. :)
Actually, I'm glad you reposted this -- I'm not sure everyone caught it when I wrote about it over the weekend. (I suspect some readers are so blinded with rage that the stock isn't performing to their commandment, that they are unable to read my posts with any rational comprehension... my notes just serve as a punching bag for their hostility at the world. Well, I don't mind... if I can bring a moment's respite from their pain, so be it.)
Anyhow, of course, it would be nice to think you are taking the insider transactions over the past year to heart -- particularly in light of the stock's dismal performance, and the quarterly financial disappointments. But alas, I suspect you are hostage to confirmation bias, and only see the news of insiders buying, while disregarding all notion of why they might be selling more shares (even as the stock dips to new lows). After all, the fiscal year is all but over, and come May will bring a new "audited" statement.
But I'm still glad you posted -- because your new attention to facts (albeit self-serving ones) might yet inspire a few newbies on this board to take a closer look at the insider transaction for Silvercorp as a way to better understand why the stock might be faltering. Thanks.
Okay, to be fair, YOU are the one who keeps bragging about your purchases (as if anyone cares, or believes you)... so it's not unexpected that someone might pay attention to your boasts and estimate your costs basis.
(((I agree with you though, it is a waste of time to put stock in your claims -- since some days you state you'll be holding for years, and other days you sound like a short-term trader. I'd guess you are neither, but just stuck in an underwater position and hoping to get out at break even.)))
lobsterpot1989 - Mar 21, 2:08PM: "SVM will be over 15.00 by the end of 2015."
lobsterpot1989 - Mar 6, 1:38PM: "Just hit where I bought before the last run-up to $3.29 a few weeks ago. Time to buy more I guess."
[Stock was around $2.40 on the day]
lobsterpot1989 - Feb 27, 3:30PM: "I sold 75 percent of my holdings @3.15 the day of earnings when it went all the way to 3.29. I am now buying it all back and today was another unit to go along with my 2.75 purchase...."
lobsterpot1989 - Feb 27, 2:19PM: "Bought another 6k @2.56 - In three years or less this is a 12.00 stock."
Yesterday, when David Kong was selling, the stock was hitting a 5 year low. It's really is kind of surprising for a Director to be dumping at these prices -- unless he has reason to think it will fall further.