I believe you will find the answer to your question here:
"Cayman Islands Insolvency Law" published by Connors, Dill, & Pearman law firm.
I posted this reference a week ago; regrettably, Yahoo! won't permit the posting of a direct link, but using the above as a search string should get you to the article.
LDK has filed for a "provisional liquidation" under Cayman islands insolvency law. As I understand this, a prerequisite for that type of petition is the filing of a "winding up" petition. A precondition of that filing, in turn, is that the stock not be currently trading.
AN equally good question, under these conditions, would be, "Why is Suntech's stock still trading?", given that they are, so far as I can tell, proceeding under the same statute in the Caymans.
Well, they don't quite come across as desperate, but one of 'em did note that he has an effective 30% annualized interest rate on the shares he's borrowed. I imagine "desperate" would be somewhere down the road, depending how long it's halted.
How do you make "shorts" nervous? Halt the stock.
I see today that a couple of posters over on the LDK board are offering bilateral share purchase arrangements to close out short positions. LDK has been halted since 21 February pursuant to filing for "provisional liquidation" in the Cayman Islands.
"The SEC does not like to get involved when there is ongoing litigation. They don't like to prejudice cases and influence a company's ability to defend itself and they view civil cases as a means to collect investigative information for free."
I've no doubt that this is their publicly-stated policy. The trouble I have with it is that the reality is far different. We need look no farther than the Chinese RTO's in litigation to see this.
Thus far, I've identified twenty nine Chinese RTO's that have been named as defendants in Federal class actions. Stanford University counts 55, so I'm obviously missing quite a few, and need to identify the rest. I digress, however.
Of the twenty nine, nine have had their registrations revoked by the SEC, and all nine were revoked while litigation was ongoing. (Revoked issuers are CCDM, CCME, CESV, CILE, FUQI, HQSM, NIVS, UTRA, and WATG.) All were revoked for filing delinquencies.
Now, even if these are the only ones amongst the 55 that were revoked, it's still over 16%, which gives the SEC's stated position a very hollow ring.
My position is that the SEC's enforcement is arbitrary and capricious; strict adherence to equal protection doctrine should result in either all, or none, being similarly treated.
Related to recent developments:
"Cayman Islands Insolvency Law" published by Connors, Dill, & Pearman law firm; this firm has specialty practices in the region.
"Chapter 15 petition date 'anchors' COMI analysis" by Pedro A. Jimenez and Mark G. Douglas of the Jones, Day law firm.
While the latter piece is focused on the determination of a foreign debtor's "center of main interests",(COMI), it does a resonably good job of outlining Chapter 15 generally.
Interesting couple of days, in fact.
Looking back to yesterday, there were just 61,996 shares traded prior to 1530 Hrs.-pretty much on track for a typical ABAT trading day. That last half hour saw 181,610 shares traded.
Today, the pace continued fairly briskly up through around 1300 Hrs., with 299,287 shares traded. From that point forward, however, only 53,712 shares changed hands-again, a fairly typical ABAT day. To be sure, the price held through the end of the day, but buyer enthusiasm seems to have waned.
I'll ponder this over some beer this week-end (looks like I'll have the pleasure of moving a few more tonnes of snow, as well; getting a tiny bit bored with that).
Y'all have a good week-end.
According to FINRA, short interest in ABAT as of 14 February was 250,997 shares, a reduction of 143,468 shares from the previous reporting period. So far in 2014, short interest has decreased by 428,977 shares.
Must be that short squeeze, eh?
Bruce, I'm doing tolerably well. We have had an unusually prolonged period of sub-zero (Farenheit, that is) weather here this year, which compelled me to make some extraordinary arrangements for my beer stock. Apart from that, no complaints.
How about yourself?
It seems to me that there is no perfect solution. The cases we're discussing at present (Madoff and Williams) are likely at two opposite ends of the continuum, with respect to broker / dealer frauds.
Williams involved a scheme of relatively short and finite duration, and, in the grand scheme of things, a modest amount of money that was readily quantifiable. If you pursue Williams both civilly and criminally, you risk losing at least part of the resource pool he has available for restitution to his criminal defense. If the goal is to make the victims whole, and money is available, it may be that justice (from the victims' point of view, anyway) is better served by foregoing the criminal prosecution in favor of the civil consent decree.
Madoff's fraud stretched over decades, and much of the money had long since been spent. I know that the SEC did obtain some disgorgement in that case (in fact, I seem to recall seeing an accounting for the Madoff Fair Fund in the last two or three months), but there was never any question of making the victims whole. That, and, the scope of fraud involved, demanded a vigorous criminal prosecution.
Another topic usefully debated over beers and cocktail napkins.
"I like the idea of "approving" the settlement now with the Final Order to take effect if ABAT regains compliance with the SEC."
I don't think that's unreasonable, but it may be outside the Court's control. As I've noted previously, there is ample precedent establishing the SEC's authority to revoke an issuer's registration while litigation is in progress, or even if delinquent periodic filings are later caught up.
I don't know of any case in which a revoked entity has attempted to remedy delinquent filings subsequent to the finalization of a revocation order. If the SEC should revoke ABAT prior to both the presumed settlement enforcement date and ABAT's filing of delinquent returns, compliance may be practically impossible.
Not suggesting that as a likely outcome, mind, but it certainly is one of those topics that's interesting to kick around speculatively over drinks and cigars.
It's always possible that the Court will independently impose an enforcement date, but I'd much rather see it unequivocally set forth in the settlement terms.
Even a stipulation that the Court will set the date when it issues its ruling approving the settlement would be preferable to what's in there right now.
Please accept my best wishes for a successful outcome tomorrow.
LBCB and I have had our little disagreements, but I concur with him that a settlement in the derivative action that does not simultaneously include a date certain on which ABAT must comply with each and every stipulated term is no settlement at all.
Apart from that, the stipulated terms are probably reasonable (and realistic). No settlement is ever perfect; perhaps there are additional items that can be usefully included, but, at the end of the day, I'd concede to accept the original terms alone if that meant getting an enforcement date set as well.
Inasmuch as this was a civil proceeding, imprisonment was never on the table as a potential penalty. Because it is a settlement, rather than a judgement, it is not dischargeable by bankruptcy (i.e., because both parties have entered into a stipulated settlement agreement, Williams and other defendants must pay, or the settlement becomes void).
Frequently in these cases, the SEC establishes a "Fair Fund" to reimburse fraud victims. Without having seen the settlement agreement, I don't know whether that is the case here, but it certainly is typical of cases in which such a fund is created.
"...In particular, Williams told his followers that by buying up the outstanding shares, or float, of these companies, they could collectively trigger a "short squeeze" that would allow them to sell their stock to "market makers" that had shorted the stock. Williams falsely stated that he had previously used this "Float Lock Down" strategy successfully to make himself and his followers enormous profits. In fact, unknown to his followers, Williams had been hired by Cascadia and Green Oasis to promote their stock and had been compensated with millions of free and discounted shares of these stocks. Williams secretly sold millions of Cascadia and Green Oasis shares at the same time he was encouraging potential investors to buy, hold and accumulate these stocks. Williams made profits of over $2.3 million from his scheme."
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, Williams, First In Awareness and Monk's Den consented to final judgments enjoining them from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and as to Williams only, enjoining him from violating Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The final judgments found Williams, Monk's Den, and First In Awareness jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of $2,357,208 in ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest of $188,766, ordered each to pay a civil penalty of $2,357,208, and imposed a penny stock bar on Williams. "
Litigation Release No. 22928 / February 19, 2014
"The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on February 12, 2014, a Connecticut federal court entered judgments against a former Connecticut-based stock promoter, Jerry S. Williams, and two companies that he controlled, Monk's Den, LLC and First In Awareness, LLC, who are defendants in a Commission enforcement action filed in 2012 alleging that they operated a fraudulent Internet-based stock touting and scalping scheme. The judgments order the defendants to pay a total of over $9.6 million.
Williams, Monk's Den, and First In Awareness were defendants in a civil fraud action filed by the Commission on July 20, 2012. The Commission's complaint alleged that from 2009 through 2010, Williams recommended two stocks, Cascadia Investments, Inc. and Green Oasis, Inc., to a large group of followers who followed his trading recommendations and strategies. Williams, who was known to his followers as "Monk," used his internet-based message board - called Monk's Den - as well as his in-person seminars (called "Monkinars"), and other means, to encourage people to buy, hold, and accumulate Cascadia and Green Oasis stock....
To be more precise, sporting ladies.
I read on China Daily late last week that over 6,000 police officers descended on Dongguan in a crackdown on prostitution, netting several hundred arrests.
I see that, over the week-end, a similar operation was conducted in Harbin.
With all that dormitory space, maybe ABAT's margins aren't so far out of line, after all.
zemun, to extend your metaphor, there is no "tree" left to shake. They've been whittling bits away and selling them off for three years now, leaving little more than a stump.
In ten days (eight working days) the principal and interest are due on those bonds. That's going to come in at something North of US$ 230 million. LDK's market cap is $206-207 million.
Unless Peng has learned to eat rice and $hyt* nickels, I think default is inevitable.
Last week, I happened upon a three-paragraph press release (in Chinese) published by the China National Energy Administration that was originally published on 4 December 2013. The subject was new-build generating capacity in 2013.
In that piece, they represented that new-build capacity ",,,from January to October..." of 2013 was as follows (values in GW):
Note that "Thermal" includes "fossil" (coal, natural gas, oil) as well as biomass, biogas, and, possibly, even geothermal.
In the same article, they estimated total end-of-year capacities; on the basis of those estimates, new-builds for the October through December period would need to be as follow:
I'm assuming that these figures refer to capacity commissioned in the periods, and so may not correspond well with sales. Nevertheless, it seems a good deal short of some of their mid-year projections.
"The Culpright get caught by himself?"
It is difficult to find the words to describe just how gratifying it is to see that one's public education tax dollars have been spent to such good effect.