Recent

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

FAB Universal Corp. Common Stoc Message Board

lbcb321 248 posts  |  Last Activity: 23 hours ago Member since: Jun 4, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 28, 2015 8:34 PM Flag

    =Simpleton, A pink sheet company like abat has no rules or exchange requirements.

    That makes you clueless. The filing requirements are based on the type of registration with the SEC and NOT on where they are currently trading. The PROOF of this can be verified at sec.gov. Just look at the enforcement actions. Companies are being revoked every week for being delinquent on required quarterly filings. A majority of these companies are on the OTC Pink which PROVES that being a pink sheet company does NOT absolve a company of their SEC requirements. Go verify this one and then come back and apologize. Better yet... here is your proof from the recent SCEI administrative action:

    "Sino Clean Energy, Inc. (CIK No. 1120096) is a defaulted Nevada corporation
    located in Xi’an, China with a class of securities registered with the Commission
    pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g). Sino Clean Energy is delinquent in its periodic
    filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form
    10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012. As of March 4, 2015, the company’s stock
    (symbol “SCEI”) was traded on the over-the-counter markets.

    Exchange Act Section 13(a) and the rules promulgated thereunder require
    issuers of securities registered pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 to file with the
    Commission current and accurate information in periodic reports, even if the registration
    is voluntary under Section 12(g). Specifically, Rule 13a-1 requires issuers to file annual
    reports, and Rule 13a-13 requires domestic issuers to file quarterly reports. As a result
    of the foregoing, Respondents failed to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and
    Rules 13a-1 and/or 13a-13 thereunder."

    There you go. It is the type of registration with the SEC and thus Exchange ACT law that determines filing requirements. SCEI is on the OTC Pink EXACTLY like ABAT and they are being revoked for delinquent filings. Now what do you have to say... simpleton?

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 28, 2015 7:17 AM Flag

    =Tesla has proven that batteries work.......everything else is talk

    That makes you clueless. Honda and Toyota are putting all their efforts into Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles and not batteries. Hyundai, GM and pretty much everyone else is working on their hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, also.

    You are yet another person who can't see that all of this is irrelevant. Even if every vehicle sold were electric, it would not affect the value of your shares in an abandoned holding company. ABAT doesn't even make batteries for REAL electric vehicles. They make small batteries for small consumer appliances and some batteries for toys... e-bikes and scooters. They shut down their Dongguan factory with no plans what to do with it next. Another poster who was an ardent long said Wuxi was also mostly shut down. algomezus who claims to be able to do research in China only commented on Harbin still being open so in his own way... he also confirmed Dongguan and Wuxi are shut down.

    It is a joke that the SEC has allowed this to go on for so many years. They have suspended/revoked companies that have gone dark more recently than ABAT. They have finally caught up with some of the better known frauds like CBEH and SCEI. I think it is VERY CLOSE to being ABAT's turn.

    By the way... how do you equate pollution in China with ABAT being a stock to buy? There is absolutely no correlation to China and the value of your Delaware holding company that has no assets.

  • Reply to

    Dear Sirs

    by wangban2001 Mar 27, 2015 4:16 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 28, 2015 6:59 AM Flag

    Hey, twisty, what are you going to do when they catch you at work making all these posts? Do they have a Psych Ward where you work?

    We already know you made up the spoof wangban alias of the other one. So, twisty... just a few days left. What are you going to say next when they don't file by March 31st? The SEC has gotten rid of CLTT and some of the other companies that were inter-related to the ABAT fraud. They even revoked CBEH and SCEI while they still had legal activity going on. Do you really believe ABAT can't be far behind?

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 28, 2015 6:55 AM Flag

    =I believe 30% of company is float outside of owner and managers.

    How did it feel pulling that number out of your backside? Not even close. The number was around 90% before they went dark and it would be highly illegal for any "owners and managers" to do any stock transactions while being dark. Have you really never heard of the concept of illegal insider trading on nonpublic information?

    = 2011 audited results would be the best right away which should be done soonest.

    Why don't you answer if their intentions was to be transparent, why don't they just release all AIC and SAT reports made in China? They ALREADY HAVE AUDITED REPORTS. All of the other promises are stalling while they sell off the rest of the assets.

    Hey, algomezus, how come you only mentioned Harbin still operating when you know Dongguan was shut down and another poster said he had proof Wuxi quit paying their employees and was mostly shut down? Is that what your research found out, also? Harbin is the only facility still operating?

    You are on record stating you are sure they will make all their filings by the end of this month. Are you still that delusional or do you finally have some doubts? There is NO WAY they can make 14 different 10-Q and 10-K reports in a few days. For you to believe this is downright mental illness.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 28, 2015 6:47 AM Flag

    =Acam is either a going concern or it is not and I do not know which for sure.

    Who is Acam? You aren't bright enough to realize it is irrelevant what the Chinese operating subsidiaries are or are not doing. Even if they were making a billion dollars a year it wouldn't matter. The US holding company is what you hold stock in and that has been abandoned. You have absolutely zero recourse against any of the Chinese operating subsidiaries.

    =I don't really care about why in the past. I care about how abt is performing now which will give me some basic indicia of the value of the stock.

    Seriously... what do you think you own shares of? You own shares of a Delaware holding company that owns a British Virgin Islands holding company that owns a Hong Kong holding company that owns and controls some operating subsidiaries in China. You don't own shares in any company that produces batteries or e-bikes or anything else. Have you been to the Delaware website and looked up if ABAT is current in their corporate registration? How come? You want to do all this wild speculation, but you won't verify any FACTS that are public record.

    All of the promises of future reports from ABAT is nonsense. If their intent was to be transparent with shareholders, all they would need to do is release all of their AIC and SAT reports filed in China. Perhaps you would like to explain why they haven't done this.

  • Reply to

    Takes 10 pennies to sell...

    by lbcb321 Mar 26, 2015 3:11 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 26, 2015 7:03 PM Flag

    I agree, china_s2. They can extend things a bit just by responding within 10 days and appearing at the hearing even if there are no merits to appealing the decision. If they don't respond within 10 days, they will probably get the order of revocation at the hearing.

  • And then a manipulator attempts to "reset" the price higher. In their delusional minds, they can value their shares at this inflated price even though they can't sell them up there.

    I predict Seiden attempts to delay the revocation process so he can milk as much in fees out of this as he can. In the end... all is irrelevant. They WILL be revoked and current shareholders will be put out of their misery. LOL... not quite. Go to the CBEH board and see how they are still there even though that stock has been revoked. Quite a pathetic display of denial.

  • Reply to

    PSSST lbcb321

    by ibn8n Mar 26, 2015 1:39 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 26, 2015 2:30 PM Flag

    LMAO! I have made over $200K the past few years on CBAK shorts and Puts. Many of those trades were documented here pretty much in real time. They lost a vast majority of their assets and are already incurring debt they cannot repay and the current shareholders will lose out just like they did when all the BAK International assets were foreclosed on. From their last 10-Q:

    We had a working capital deficiency and accumulated deficit from recurring net losses incurred for the current and prior years and significant short-term debt obligations maturing in less than one year as of December 31, 2014.

    Liquidity and Capital Resources

    Before the foreclosure of the pledged ownership of BAK International, we had historically financed our liquidity requirements from a variety of sources, including short-term bank loans, other short-term loans and bills payable under bank credit agreements, factoring of bills receivable to banks and issuance of capital stock. During the three months ended December 31, 2014, we were primarily financed by short-term bank loans and other short-term loans.

    As of December 31, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of $35,020. Our total current assets were $8.3 million and our total current liabilities were $18.8 million, which results in a net working capital deficiency of $10.5 million. These factors raise substantial doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern. In October 2014, we received from Dalian government a subsidy of $7.4 million (RMB46.2 million) for costs of land use rights relating to the new manufacturing site in Dalian. We obtained a short term bank loan of $4.8 million (RMB30 million) from Bank of Dandong for a period from August 19, 2014 to August 18, 2015. The short term bank loan is bearing fixed interest at 7.8% per annum and was guaranteed by Shenzhen BAK and Mr. Xiangqian Li.

    They are already going into debt they can't repay. They are toast. $35,020 in cash... LMAO!

  • Reply to

    I need to admit something to this board

    by fu_lied Mar 25, 2015 1:24 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 25, 2015 9:20 PM Flag

    =There are about five others

    It is really one or two with multiple aliases. therealfacts, justice, logic, etc. etc. are all the same person. twisty has numerous aliases he uses to pump or bash based on which direction he is currently manipulating the price. Even SCEI got the revocation notice. ABAT can't be far behind now.

    The hedge fund suing ABAT under the Delaware Open Records Law gets to see the books and was not banned from trading their million plus shares even though they were to keep the information confidential. The price direction has been down since that February ruling. Guess what they found out when they inspected the books? Remember that 400K share day when the price tanked from .43 to .25? In hindsight we now know it came exactly at the time the court ordered ABAT to open their books to the hedge fund. Interesting.

  • Reply to

    SEC Activity Related to Sino Clean Energy, Inc.

    by china_s2 Mar 25, 2015 2:21 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 25, 2015 8:49 PM Flag

    Don't worry, Sutter will have his buddy attorney Eugene Licker write a letter to the SEC asking them not to revoke since it would harm current shareholders. Wait, he already did that with CBEH and the SEC said it was irrelevant and revoked them anyway. The official SEC position was:

    "Even if China Integrated should get all of its delinquent filings submitted before this Court rules on summary disposition, the respondent's securities registration should still be revoked based on its violations of the Exchange Act. In Absolute Potential, Inc., the Commission revoked the registration of the delinquent issuer despite the fact that it became current during summary disposition briefing. It is necessary to deter Absolute and other issuers from disregarding their obligations to present accurate and timely information to the investing public until spurred by the institution of proceedings. Deterrence is meaningful only if a lengthy delinquency, in the absence of strongly compelling circumstances regarding the other Gateway factors, results in revocation."

    This will be no different. It WILL be revoked regardless of any games they play to try to stall it. CBEH shareholders got as high as 11 pennies before it was revoked, but it is amazing how many refused the gift and ended up with nothing instead of something. It will be interesting to see how many SCEI shareholders take nothing instead of something.

    As a reminder to Sutter and the other 13D filers... you are breaking the law if you sell your shares without filing an amendment to your 13D. Your trading revenue will be disgorged and you will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. You are being watched.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 25, 2015 8:34 AM Flag

    =Clown, arcam at this stage is not REQUIRED to file any given report

    Who or what is this "arcam" you keep referring to? Are you really so stupid you have been continually pumping the wrong company with your nonsense? What country are you in that has this boiler room set up with somebody so clueless they are pumping the wrong company?

    ABAT is required to make filings with the SEC based on their type of registration. It is a LEGAL requirement. You are a big fan of legal terms and legal requirements. Strange you can't grasp the fact that they are breaking the law by not fulfilling the obligations they agreed to under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I can quote you the exact sections they are violating. One of them is 12(j). It is hilarious you are so clueless you actually think they don't have any reporting requirements yet you pretend to act like such an authority.

    You also claim they are able to buy back shares showing once more how clueless you are. It is considered illegal insider trading on nonpublic information for a company that is not current to engage in the buying or selling of its own stock.

    Two of the basics of investing. A company is required to file with the SEC based on their registration type and is not dependent on what exchange they trade on and a company cannot buy back shares while delinquent in their filing requirements.

    Even the simplest of dolts here have learned those two things through the years as I have shown the proof. Oh yeah... no such thing as PROOF of anything unless it comes from the US legal system. OMG! Are you for real? Just promise you will stick around until they get revoked by the SEC for being delinquent in filings you say they do not need to make.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 24, 2015 9:28 PM Flag

    =Thanks for substantiating this sisy

    LMAO! What was "substantiated"? Where is the press release from Jiangsu Duke New Energy with their news of an agreement with ABAT? It is amazing how gullible the simpletons here are!

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 24, 2015 9:26 PM Flag

    =who stated as one of his PROVEN FACTS: "It ONLY exists in an ABAT PR".

    Another lie from you. My exact quote:

    "Not saying Jiangsu Duke New Energy Automobile Company doesn't exist. There just isn't a single hit on them other than from the ABAT PR. Why didn't they put out their own PR? How come they don't have a website?"

    Does that sound like I stated it as a "proven fact"?

    You are always lying about what I post and then you get punked when I go back and pull up the exact quotes.

    7 more calendar days for 14 different 10-Q and 10-K reports as well as the dozens of 8-Ks that need to be made to properly disseminate all the REQUIRED information they need to get out in a proper Reg FD-compliant manner.

    Too bad this one can't be shorted. That would be a foolish move as a short will get caught as surely as a long when they get revoked.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 24, 2015 8:27 PM Flag

    =I had no problem finding referenfce to Jiangsu Duke New energy

    Really? What is their website? Name just ONE "established periodical" that has any references to Jiangsu Duke New Energy. The only references anywhere that I can find are the robots that regurgitate PRs. The only reference I have ever seen of them is based on the ABAT PR and I have not seen ONE third-party reference to them other than what ABAT made up.

    =Duke and Abat made a deal sanctioned by the Chinese govt

    Really? Now you have some government source indicating a sanctioned deal? Please provide us with the government website where we can verify this sanctioned deal.

    =Believe me if the deal did not exist, abat would not have issued the PR as there was no motivation

    LMAO! Really? No motivation to dump their millions of shares? You are beyond gullible. I will look forward to verifying your "established periodicals" and government websites that talk about Jangsu Duke New Energy and their government sanctioned deal.

    Not only WOULD they issue a fake PR... they have done it numerous times in the past. Do some research on Foo's Entrepeneur of the Year Award that was given by an organization that only exists in an ABAT PR. Sound familiar?

    Did you really not verify the HPJ PR that they plagiarized and even went so far as to attribute quotes to Foo that were made by another? You are the one that is so high on what judges think and say. How come no comment on the remarks made by the judge that can be verified by anybody in the official court docs?

    =BUt I have no doubt that the MOU between 2 independent entities was made

    Yet you can't even confirm that one of the entities even EXISTS. Oh wait... you did confirm this. Please share with the rest of us. Nobody else can find these established periodicals and government websites that give any indication Jiangsu Duke New Energy exists anywhere else but in an ABAT PR.

    This should be good!

  • Reply to

    Highpowr International

    by china_s2 Mar 23, 2015 5:40 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 24, 2015 8:09 AM Flag

    =a deciding official or jury after a judicial proceeding, must conclude that something is true.

    What a BUFFOON! In your world... NOTHING can be proven unless it has the seal of approval from the judicial system. How ridiculous is that?

    It is not true that the sun is rising this morning. No "deciding official or jury after a judicial proceeding" has concluded this. I would believe my own two eyes and a little common sense over the judicial system that said OJ Simpson was not guilty of murder and has sentenced many innocent people to death.

    The plagiarism is PROVEN to anybody who can read. Do you need a judge to tell you to wipe your backside after taking a Foo? You don't seem to be able to form an opinion or take any action unless a judge or jury okays it for you. Since you like judges so much... here is what Judge Colleen McMahon stated on the record during the ABAT case when she denied a motion to dismiss:

    "Taking it as that ABAT grossly overstated its earnings and used the shareholder money raised thereby in undisclosed related party transactions between ABAT and its Chairman and CEO #$%$, the inference that it did so with fraudulent intent is not merely strong, it is inescapable. This is not like the securities fraud complaint that alleges that poor business decisions were made, leading to a drop in the price of the stock. Rather, the theory underlying Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations is that ABAT itself was a fraud, backdoored into the U.S. equity markets in order to raise funds that it promptly diverted to a handful of insiders. These are not far-fetched or absurd allegations, and they are well supported by the specific allegations of fact in the Complaint."

    Another quote of hers:

    "I cannot give judicial imprimatur to any settlement of this derivative action that does not require ABAT to bring its years of unfiled financial reports current, and to make future filings for as long as it is legally required to do so... The motion is, therefore, denied."

  • Reply to

    Highpowr International

    by china_s2 Mar 23, 2015 5:40 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 23, 2015 6:19 PM Flag

    HPJ dropped a buck just because they announced some orders were pushed into Q1 of 2015 instead of Q4 of 2014. I got some cheap $5 Calls back then. They are working their way back up and I believe they will have strong guidance they disclose tomorrow and will head towards $6.

    With HPJ... you can CONFIRM and VERIFY what their PRs say from other third party sources. With ABAT... you can't even find any valid references to their "partners" that back up what they say. No wonder ABAT plagiarized the HPJ PR pretty much word for word. That is a REAL company unlike ABAT.

    Anybody who would still hold this after it was proven they plagiarized the PR from another company is just beyond delusional. pdb is still a believer because he hasn't seen a court order saying ABAT plagiarized the PR. He is too stupid to read the two PRs and come to that conclusion himself. Too danged funny!

  • Reply to

    New Contract

    by wangban2001 Mar 23, 2015 9:17 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 23, 2015 4:53 PM Flag

    Does it really not bother anybody that their new "partner" only exists in an ABAT PR? Anybody find anything on them other than from the PR?

    Jiangsu Duke New Energy Automobile Company

    All they did was manage to find a few new suckers as they were selling at .34 while the delusional who have never verified a thing fell for more lies hook, line and sinker. This PR is from the same Crescendo Communications that was caught plagiarizing another PR.

    Not saying Jiangsu Duke New Energy Automobile Company doesn't exist. There just isn't a single hit on them other than from the ABAT PR. Why didn't they put out their own PR? How come they don't have a website? Learn how to do some DD.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 23, 2015 8:26 AM Flag

    LMFAO! 6 posts in a row with more of your word soup. Ummm... what point are you even trying to make? You are twisting some words into some alleged gaffs in minutiae while totally ignoring the FACTS at hand.

    How come you won't comment on ABAT breaking the law by failing to make their REQUIRED filings to the SEC? I can quote you the exact sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 they are violating. How about the Delaware law they are breaking? They are REQUIRED to hold an annual shareholder meeting and have shirked that duty for years. I have shown you from their own filings where they have broken more laws and failed to make required disclosures of related party transactions. Their per se violations are numerous and you want to act Clintonesque and debate the meaning of "is".

    Go play your juvenile games with somebody else. I have proven ABAT is a fraud from publicly-available documents . "Fraud" is not JUST a legal term no matter how many times you want to repeat that nonsense. Would you like to comment on the PROVEN act of plagiarism where ABAT copied the PR of another company and even attributed quotes to Foo that were made by the CTO of another company? The proof is there for anybody to verify.

    You keep believing in your fraud and attack those who expose it and the manipulators who try to con others into taking their worthless shares off their hands. Just please, please stick around so we can get your comments when their registration is revoked. That should be priceless.

  • Reply to

    count down

    by axg0210 Mar 22, 2015 1:44 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 22, 2015 4:45 PM Flag

    =By the way, axg0210 is not talking about making audited reports

    Of course he was. Can't you read?

    "Seven days to the end of the month for ABAT management to release the audited reports."

    Can't be any more clear he said "AUDITED REPORTS".

    =And I am talking about intern financial reports, like Abat said in his PR.

    Another lie. ABAT didn't say internal reports. They said AUDITED reports from Paritz & Company. Here is the EXACT quote from the PR:

    "We are pleased to retain Paritz & Company, P.A. to audit the financial statements from 2011 to 2014 and we are determined to become fully compliant with SEC reporting rules."

    They CLEARLY stated the reports will be audited and not "internal". You can't become "fully compliant with SEC reporting rules" without AUDITED reports. Another thing to note is this statement means they need MORE than JUST the financial reports to be filed. They also need to make dozens of 8-K filings where they properly disseminate all of their management changes, BOD changes and all of the other 8-K triggering events they have failed to report in order to be "fully compliant with SEC reporting rules".

    I told you the manipulators would begin backtracking and making up excuses why the AUDITED filings never happened. They are already making up lies even though I have provided the proof that anybody can verify of exactly what was stated.

    pdb3838... before you play your word-games with someone who has stood up to the manipulators here for years, you should verify some of the facts to see just who is on the side of righteousness and who is conning good people out of their money. Did you see that ABAT even plagiarized the PR from another company and even went so far as to claim quotes from the HPJ Chief Technology Officer were made by Chairman Foo? I'll repost that one if you wish. Then you can determine if ABAT is a proven fraud or not. There are more components to fraud than JUST the legal definition. ABAT is, indeed, a proven fraud.

  • Reply to

    count down

    by axg0210 Mar 22, 2015 1:44 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Mar 22, 2015 2:47 PM Flag

    =It can be done.

    14 different 10-Q and 10-K reports in a week and you think it can be done. Just amazing how clueless someone can be. Call a Big-4 firm and ask them if they could do it in a week if they devoted all staff to it. It is impossible with the verifications needed in a forensic audit.

    The PCAOB has already called out Paritz for not conducting audits properly with proper verifications. IMO, there is no way they actually intended to do anything. They took a small amount of cash to be listed as the auditor of record and that is all they will ever do.

    They know ABAT is on record publicly saying they intended to come current by the end of Q1. When they didn't receive any cooperation and this became impossible, I believe they had a duty to resign. IMO, not doing so makes them complicit in a fraudulent scheme. Their silence makes them an accomplice in defrauding the public.

FU
3.070.00(0.00%)