Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 5:35 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

FAB Universal Corp. Common Stoc Message Board

lbcb321 625 posts  |  Last Activity: 14 hours ago Member since: Jun 4, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 5:47 PM Flag

    =7) NYSE delisted FABU

    8 valid points, but the delusional will jump all over you for this one. They aren't delisted yet. They are in the middle of delisting proceedings. If you look up their old symbol, it still exists. Trading is now suspended and not halted. They are still listed on the NYSE until the Form 25 is filed at the end of the process.

    =It was likely guaranteed by the Longyuan building on which they had the deposit that has yet to be returned to them.

    I believe that, also. They need to come clean on just who the entity is that is refusing to return the deposit. Shouldn't be too hard for investigators to find who this is and whether or not they have a relationship with Zhang. My guess is yes.

    =The money sat in some account that wasn't FAB's for months.

    People don't borrow money at hard money terms and then let it sit in some account for months. Going back to the Longyuan building... is the reason they can't return that deposit because the deposit money was used by Zhang to "repay" the note proceeds when he was caught?

    They need full disclosure on all these related party transactions. This is a farce.

  • Reply to

    Getting Money out of China

    by threegorgeousdamn Aug 20, 2014 2:52 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 5:33 PM Flag

    =The point here is that if Robert Seiden forces a sale of the company

    In my best Ronald Reagan... "Well, there you go again".

    Forces a sale of WHICH company? Until you understand that question, you are just another of the clueless sheeple standing in line to be sheared. Do you really think that the sale of an empty shell will net more than the current market cap?

    He can't sell the Chinese operating subsidiaries. Do you want to verify that or are you just going to keep your head in the sand and ignore that fact?

    Unbelievable. I fear I am casting pearls before swine again here.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:27 PM Flag

    = FAB just spent about a million dollars trying to stay listed on the NYSE.

    LOL! They spent the money to try to halt trading as long as they could to protect themselves from liability in lawsuits. They could have continued trading on a high OTC tier while working on continuing their NYSE listing. You keep twisting the FACTS.

    = They are hoping this plays out over the next few days/weeks. If they get booted and they don't move then you have a point.

    It would take nothing for them to move off the Grey Market to a higher OTC tier. Explain again why they aren't doing this? It is a CLEAR failure to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders. Giving their shareholders proper executions and price discover now does not affect their ongoing appeal with the NYSE. You just can't explain away that one.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:22 PM Flag

    =you're going to throw out an accusation that he's busy stealing chump change while putting that at risk?

    $16.3M wasn't exactly chump change and yes... it did put everything at risk. Now that he has no ability to raise capital in the US he might as well just end the charade by declaring the VIE agreements void and going back to distributing pirated content in China.

  • Reply to

    SCEI shareholders forced a change

    by brntjns1234 Aug 20, 2014 8:59 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:18 PM Flag

    = Until then, it is all just speculation.

    No... it isn't speculation. You can't show a single penny that has ever left China to pay a US shareholder based on a judgment from a US court. This is pure and simple a pump & dump scheme.

  • Reply to

    Getting Money out of China

    by threegorgeousdamn Aug 20, 2014 2:52 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:11 PM Flag

    =So when Seiden and his cronies sell this

    You are a slick one. You keep going back to vague references. What is the "this" you are claiming they will sell? The only "this" they can sell is the empty shell. Are you claiming the shell is worth $6.5M plus all the fees they are accumulating?

    Where is the SC 13D/A, Alain? Haven't your attorneys told you that you are breaking the law by not amending your filing? Have you asked each member of the group to update you on their buys and sells so you know when you are LEGALLY REQUIRED to file the amendment?

    Sutter is going to use you and hang you out to dry.

  • Reply to

    Getting Money out of China

    by threegorgeousdamn Aug 20, 2014 2:52 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:05 PM Flag

    =The shareholders of the following companies are documented and proven to get money for the shares they owned in these Chinese companies:

    That is what is known as a straw man argument. You still haven't shown a single penny that has ever left China to pay a judgment in a US court. If some other company has chosen to do a face-saving buyout due to political connections or whatever is irrelevant. There has never once been an abandoned US holding company that has forced money out of China.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 4:03 PM Flag

    =it is up to receiver to get them the most for their shares.

    At least you are admitting the receiver is complicit in a pump & dump scheme for the abandoned US holding company and there isn't a penny that will leave China to give to shareholders.

    That you, Sutter? I thought so.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 2:26 PM Flag

    =I really don't care what you bashers think.

    You SHOULDN'T care what anybody else thinks. What you SHOULD care about is VERIFYING what anybody has to say no matter what you perceive their motives to be. Motives do not change facts.

    = It is about selling existing assets, whatever they are worth.

    Wow... that ostrich method of doing DD is going to break you. They CAN'T sell the assets of the Chinese operating subsidiaries. Chinese law protects the interests of the Chinese operating subsidiaries over any perceived control by a foreign holding company.

    You believe what you want, but the rest of the world is understanding and verifying what is really happening and that is why there is no huge pop. Just a few delusional and manipulators left are the only reason this has a $6M market cap even though the stock SCEI represents an abandoned holding company with minimal assets and no ability to get their hands on the PRC assets.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 2:17 PM Flag

    =FTI and Loeb clearly present the facts why Huzhong is not under the control of Zhang.

    Really? How do you know? None of us have ever seen a report from FTI or Loeb & Loeb. When did they give you a copy to read?

    The EY report said their research showed there WAS a related party nature with Zhang and these other entities he claimed to have no involvement in. I made no claims that FTI and Loeb & Loeb lied about this. I stated FAB lied about this since they knew from the EY report they found evidence of this. You made another straw man argument and changed what I stated.

    =I went back and reviewed the source articles and in the PR he wrongly characterizes the word "independent" is used to refer to FTI and Loeb, not the report, as Carnes wrongly claims.

    You are lying then. I posted the exact references:

    What FAB anounced in a PR on March 5, 2014:

    "FAB Universal Board Announces Engagement of FTI Consulting by Loeb & Loeb to undertake Independent Investigation"

    What it was changed to after viewing the report:

    "FAB PROVIDES UPDATE ON INTERNAL INVESTIGATION"

    Those are your EXACT QUOTES that can be verified from the source documents. They called it an "Independent Investigation" in the March 5, 2014 PR and they called it an "Internal investigation" when they gave their summary. Why do you keep lying about things anybody can verify?

    Once more I post verifiable facts while you post lies.

  • Reply to

    what happened to this board

    by roccjewletta58 Aug 19, 2014 8:38 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 2:12 PM Flag

    go to the FABU board

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 2:02 PM Flag

    =Plus we don't know definitively if those related conditions were met or not met.

    Of course we know:

    (i) upon the successful completion of certain Corporate Governance Objectives for the four (4) consecutive and complete reporting quarters of the Company immediately following the Closing

    (ii) upon the successful completion of: (a) all of the Corporate Governance Objectives for the four (4) consecutive and complete reporting quarters of the Company immediately following the Closing; and (b) a Revenue Objective requiring DEI to attain sales revenues of at least US$60,000,000 and net income of US$12,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, UEG’s designees shall have the right to convert the second tranche of 40 shares of Preferred Stock into 5,488,364 shares of the Company’s common stock. Only the revenue and net income objectives were met.

    This tells us that the corporate governance objectives for the first 4 consecutive quarters after the closing were not met. The conditions of "(ii)" build upon the conditions of "(i)". If they weren't met as part of the conditions of the second tranche, they were not met as conditions of the first.

    Once more... why are you trying to set up shareholders to bend over and allow Zhang to receive the shares he did not qualify for? I thought you were on the side of shareholders? Don't you understand if Zhang receives these shares, the price of FABU drops by over half with this dilution?

    =I will post late tonight on that issue to give additional clarity.

    LMAO! You have promised this a dozen times in the past and have never once followed-up on the additional information that was forthcoming from you. Still waiting for your "sources" on my identity. You are a joke. I give you permission to disclose everything you have learned about me here.

  • Reply to

    SCEI shareholders forced a change

    by brntjns1234 Aug 20, 2014 8:59 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 1:03 PM Flag

    =No, they are taking control of the company.

    LOL... you STILL don't get it. They are taking control of the foreign holding companies. These foreign holding companies have minimal assets, if any. They do NOT own any companies or assets in China. What are you missing about this simple fact?

    =Wiscon, the HK holding company of SCEI has all the power.

    You have it backwards. You own shares in the defunct Nevada holding corporation, Sino Clean Energy Inc. This holding company controls (controlled) Wiscon. I take that back that Sino Clean Energy Inc. is defunct. They may have pulled it out of the ashes by paying the fees once they took control of it. That is irrelevant and I don't care enough to look it up.

    At any rate, you have no recourse to do anything with the assets in China.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 12:46 PM Flag

    =Carl Marks and Company will be appointed as the management control of the company and they will sell it for the most they can get for it.

    They will sell "it". Another vague reference. They won't sell any Chinese operating subsidiaries. They are going to sell the Nevada Holding corporation? They are going to sell Wiscon Holdings? Maybe. There is minimal value to selling empty shells. Especially ones that are delinquent in filings and have a sordid history of fraud. It sure won't be for the current $6M market cap minus legal expenses. Seiden, et al might get partial compensation for their services, but you are delusional if you think anything will be left to trickle down to shareholders of the abandoned US holding company.

    When are you going to verify Chinese law states that they can't take ownership of the Chinese operating subsidiaries? The "control" through the VIE agreements is a fleeting thing. Just show me once where any money has ever left China to pay a shareholder in a US holding company in one of these cases and I will go away. Why won't you acknowledge this has NEVER happened?

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 12:36 PM Flag

    =If he sees a threat from Seiden, he will simply sell assets, pay himself a bonus and leave. It is all perfectly legal

    He doesn't need to sell the assets (if there are any). All he needs to do is declare the VIE agreements void if he has not already done so and PRC law backs him on doing that. His fiduciary duty is to the Chinese operating subsidiary and not to the foreign holding company. You are making this harder than it is. Controlling a foreign holding company gives you zero rights to force the Chinese operating subsidiaries to do anything. If this were the case, you would have seen it play out a hundred times as these frauds have abandoned their US holding companies.

    This is not an effort to obtain assets from China. This is an effort to manipulate the abandoned stock of an impotent holding company.

    Read that last line of mine one more time. I typed it slowly for you. Eventually you will see it is true. The time it takes for your denial to sink in will quantify what your losses are here.

  • Reply to

    SCEI shareholders forced a change

    by brntjns1234 Aug 20, 2014 8:59 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 12:24 PM Flag

    =There is a replacement of the BOD of the subsidiary

    No there isn't. You either are intentionally misleading people or you aren't making the effort to understand what is happening. They are replacing the BOD of the foreign holding company and NOT of the Chinese operating subsidiaries. They know that they CANNOT take ownership of the Chinese operating subsidiaries. PRC law does not allow it.

    You are interpreting things as you wish them to be and not as they really are. Don't believe me... verify it for yourself.

  • Reply to

    NINCOMPOOP has PENT UP ENERGY!!!!

    by chaosgold Aug 20, 2014 10:37 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 12:19 PM Flag

    =He can shut down any decent conversation!

    Yeah... they HATE it when you wise up their fish. You can easily put me in my place. Prove I am full of it and you have a chance. Show me JUST ONE PENNY that has left China to pay a foreign shareholder to satisfy a foreign judgment. JUST ONE.

    The FACT is that Chinese law protects the Chinese operating subsidiaries from foreign holding companies taking ownership of them. Seiden is very careful to use the words of "taking control". LOL... you CONTROL nothing. How long now has Seiden supposedly "controlled" ZSTN? Have you ever seen a penny leave China to pay Deutsch? I honestly don't know, but I have challenged people for a long time to show this has happened and nobody can do it.

    You are being conned once more. Alain is breaking the law by not amending the group's SC 13D and he knows it. Sutter played him. He knows the law and made sure it was not HIS name responsible for updating this official SEC filing. He did make sure that his name was in the PR, though. TOO funny.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 12:07 PM Flag

    =The situation is, in my opinion, a related party deal in which FABU shareholders have incomplete information.

    Did you read the EY report where they were doing the pre-acquisition DD? They were aware of all these related party conflicts that Zhang flat-out lied to them about. We still don't have the answer to the question of who is the entity that is still holding $13M that was the deposit for the building. How much do you want to bet it is controlled by Zhang and/or his business partners in other ventures?

    They are also lying about the known related party conflict with Huzhong Culture. The agents are still operating as is evidenced by their convention. They just aren't recording the license sales to a FAB company anymore. That is why Huzhong doesn't have a maintenance agreement with FAB anymore. They have it with some other company that the kiosk business is now going to.

    These are not far-fetched conspiracy theories. It is more likely than not from what we know. The proven facts make this fail to be investment-grade. The probability of the conjecture items are not needed, but someone has to be in deep denial to ignore them.

    How come they are still harming shareholders by allowing trading to continue on the Grey Market? They qualify for a higher OTC tier and could end this immediately if they were upholding their fiduciary duty to shareholders. Want to know why? They are protecting THEMSELVES from future lawsuits. The lawsuits require that FAB is trading on an "efficient marketplace". You are already warned and have no legal recourse if you choose to trade a Grey Market stock.

    Hey, Joe... ask your despised attorneys about that one. It is another verifiable fact that it requires an "efficient exchange" in order to sue for securities fraud and by remaining on the Grey Market they are harming shareholders while covering their own backsides from more lawsuits.

    Can't believe nobody has petitioned the Colorado courts yet to force an annual shareholder meeting.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 11:08 AM Flag

    =From my take it looks like they are going to cancel the 13M shares and give him the rest, but that's my take (and are using the CERTAIN and ALL angle to get it done).

    LMAO! Hey, Joe... why don't you ask one of those attorneys that works for you that you so despise. I'm not an attorney, but even I understand that "certain" used in that context means "specific". The certain (specific) conditions were not met and according to the wording of the agreement, they CANNOT be met in the future since they needed to be met in the number of quarters IMMEDIATELY following the closing.

    It is so obvious you are a company hack whose role is to spread misinformation and make the shareholders more "receptive" to outrageous decisions that are contrary to their best interests.

    I just have to laugh at you trying to explain away the absurd.

    In the end, it won't matter what percentage of stock Zhang holds in the US holding company. He (and his Chinese cronies) own 100% of the Chinese operating subsidiaries at any time of their choosing when they declare the VIE agreements to be void. You know that is their option and is actually REQUIRED under Chinese law. They have a fiduciary duty to the Chinese operating subsidiaries and NOT to the foreign holding companies.

    This direct conflict flies in the face of US law, but everybody looks the other way. This simple fact is the reason you see miniscule P/Es on most Chinese stocks even if they have no allegations of any wrongdoing. There is no accountability and anybody who thinks they are INVESTING in the foreign holding companies of Chinese operating subsidiaries is fooling themselves. You are gambling. For those who understand the risks and make your speculative gambles long and short... good luck to you. Those who try to mislead people into thinking these are"normal" investments with "normal" risks are despicable.

    The red flags here are so voluminous that a better investment would be a flag company and not a proven Chinese fraud.

  • Reply to

    Why put it into receivership

    by brntjns1234 Aug 19, 2014 3:24 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 20, 2014 10:22 AM Flag

    =They have ruled that an entity owned by a foreign company owns the assets of that company. There is no gray area here at all.

    LOL! Show us. Show us where one penny has ever left China. I think I know what case you are referring to and you are VASTLY misinterpreting what was actually ruled and what the circumstances were. It's simple... just show us where Seiden or anybody else has successfully gotten a penny out of China and given it to a US shareholder.

FU
3.070.00(0.00%)

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.