Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 12:51 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 3 hrs 9 mins


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

FAB Universal Corp. Common Stoc Message Board

lbcb321 645 posts  |  Last Activity: 4 hours ago Member since: Jun 4, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 22, 2014 10:37 AM Flag

    Only paper-traders like you buy at the low of day and sell at the high of day. REAL traders understand what a Bid and Ask are and understand real-world trading. The last-sale price means nothing. It can change 100% or more here depending on whether the last trade was a buy or sell order.

    The only relevant thing is it has taken teens or .20s for a long time to sell even moderate volume. You don't get to sell at the high of day or even at the last sales price. This is a "Hotel California" stock. You can buy-in anytime you like... but you can never leave!

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 5:46 PM Flag

    =china recently ruled, loud and clear, that any chinese company will be governed by and must abide by the laws and regulations of the country in which they are registered

    You are either a liar or extremely stupid. Look at the filings of almost every Chinese company and you will see them disclose under their "risks" section that Chinese law dictates that the management of the Chinese operating subsidiaries owe a fiduciary duty to their Chinese interests and NOT to the shareholders of the foreign holding company. Do you want me to pull up one for you?

    Here you go. This is the disclaimer for FAB Universal:

    The VIE is jointly owned by individuals, including our Chairman. Conflicts of interest between these individuals’ role as shareholders of the VIE and their duties to DEI may arise. In addition, these individuals are also directors and executive officers of the VIE. PRC laws provide that a director or certain member of senior management owes a fiduciary duty to the company he directs or manages. These individuals must therefore act in good faith and in the best interests of the relevant VIE and must not use their respective positions for personal gain. These laws do not require them to consider best interests of DEI when making decisions as a director or member of management of the relevant VIE. Conflicts may arise between these individuals’ fiduciary duties as directors and officers of the VIE and DEI. We cannot assure you that when conflicts of interest arise, these individuals will act in the best interests of the Company or DEI or those conflicts of interest will be resolved in favor of the Company or DEI.

    Did you get that?

    PRC laws provide that a director or certain member of senior management owes a fiduciary duty to the company he directs or manages. These individuals must therefore act in good faith and in the best interests of the relevant VIE

    What part of that don't you understand?

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 5:23 PM Flag on lying, distortion and the word "illegal".

    At least you didn't put that nonsense in quotation marks and attribute it to me like truth does. It is pretty despicable, nevertheless, to imply I stated these things in anything close to those words.

    I provide the supporting documentation for what I state as a fact and I clearly demarcate opinion while providing the supporting basis for the opinion.

    I use the word "illegal" correctly. Show me where I have ever used the term when I could not back up what law was being broken.

    Poor Joe... he can never counter the information presented along with the supporting documentation so he continues to deflect to his nonsense. But what would someone expect from someone who fell for the Zhang/Spencer Scam?

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 3:01 PM Flag

    =The company is in receivership. The only way out for Ren is to buy the company back

    Still have your head in... the sand I see. Once more, you are not being specific. What company do you think he needs to buy back? Sino Clean Energy Inc? Why would he want an empty, defunct shell? Wiscon? What use does he have for that empty shell?

    His "way out" as you phrase it is to simply declare the VIE agreements to be void. The "ownership" always was and will continue to remain with the Chinese. That is perfectly legal and Chinese law backs that action from him.

    = the court ruling by the supreme court of China on June 14th that any Chinese company owned by a foreign entity owns the assets of that company. Period.

    LMAO! That isn't what that ruling was about. OMG! No matter you are so excited over nothing. No, China has not done a complete 180 over foreign ownership of Chinese companies. The whole VIE arrangement is actually an illegal attempt to circumvent these laws. Everybody kind of winks and pretends it isn't for now as cash has flowed INTO China and into the pockets of sleazy investment bankers, but that charade will end quickly if anybody ever has the audacity to claim what you are saying.

    You need to re-read the content of that court ruling. I saw a couple references to it on the internet that left out the whole context of what was being ruled on. There are also some very in-depth reports that show you just how inconsequential that court case was in the grander scheme of things.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 12:36 PM Flag

    =That is your ill-founded, highly speculative opinion, and nothing more.

    LMAO! I just have to laugh at you. I can provide the EXACT quote from company filings and authorized PRs and you tell everybody not to believe their eyes, but these documents that have been gone over by their attorneys with a fine-tooth comb might really mean something other than the CLEAR language they chose to use.

    =The headline is somewhat unclear

    No it isn't:

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

    Those words could not be more clear. You think they are paying a million dollars to these people and they aren't approving every word that is released? Dream on.

    =but don't say a word about the Carnes headline the night before the transition to the Grey Market. FAB DELISTED BY NYSE or something very similar was the headline.

    I DID say that was incorrect and you are lying once more. I even corrected another poster just yesterday on that finer point that delisting proceedings commenced, but until the Form 25 was filed they are still listed on the NYSE. Do I really need to pull up these posts for you AGAIN?

    My posting history always confirms you are a twisting liar yet you persist... a sure sign of mental illness. Most caught in this many lies just slink away, yet you come back to be punked over and over. Seek help.

    Go back to trying to associate their transgressions to Carnes and try to associate me to Carnes. Both are nonsense, but it is all you have.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 12:21 PM Flag

    And what will it take to force Alain out of his silence? An enforcement action from the SEC?

    Over a year and no amendment to the SC 13D. It would be illegal if the group was selling shares in the past year without disclosing it and it is illegal if they are buying now without disclosing it. Hard to believe they haven't met the threshold to needing an amended return.

    They can make the price whatever they want on the Grey Market. There is not a Bid and Ask from a market maker.

    So which route will Ren take? Did he think it would take a couple months to stall and void the VIE agreements and update filings with the local AIC offices or will he put out an unaudited statement saying the company is failing and there is nothing to pursue?

    This should be fun to watch.

  • Reply to

    SCEI shareholders forced a change

    by brntjns1234 Aug 20, 2014 8:59 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 11:07 AM Flag

    TOO funny. truthwantsout is stalking me from board to board and posted on the wrong board. His real name is Benjamin Terry Williams and he is a professor at FSU in Tallahassee. Good thing classes will start back up soon so he will have something to do besides stalk me. I'll bet ballsy is jealous he isn't my number one stalker anymore.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 11:03 AM Flag

    =What is your objective day in and day out bombarding this board with conjecture and innuendo?

    I rarely post out of the blue here. 99% of my posts are responding to lies and misinformation from you, Ben. How come you changed aliases again? Wow... this one is a whole week old now. Happy Anniversary.

    =Why do you continue to refuse to reveal your affiliations with either Carnes or Geoinvesting?

    My feelings on them are well-documented. I have no respect for either and I have often said I believe Carnes is a fool. Instead of sticking to the verifiable facts, he gives the delusional minor points to nit-pic at with his add-on allegations. Like "chick with business card". I laughed at that one, but manipulators like Joe can point to it and say it is reason to refute EVERYTHING regardless of how well-documented it is.

    It is funny to see your desperation and how you try so hard to identify me with Carnes et al and to try to associate his hearing based on SVM investigations years ago to the current FAB investigations. You can't counter any of the information so you need to run a smear campaign based on innuendo.

    Pssst... by the way. You posted on the wrong board as you were stalking me and you made your reply on the ABAT board and not here. Seek help before your mental illness consumes you.

  • lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 10:35 AM Flag

    Wow... you really are clueless. You just confirmed they also said it was an INDEPENDENT investigation in the body as well as in the headline:

    "Management remains in complete support of the independent investigation of these issues and continues to be committed to full cooperation,” said Christopher Spencer, CEO of FAB."

    These weasels know that words have specific meanings and they understand the differences. Perhaps they really intended for it to be an independent investigation and they had to change it at a later time when what was discovered was so damning. As a shareholder, you should be DEMANDING the whole report be released instead of trying to defend those who have harmed you and are continuing to cover it up.

    What you should be worried about is there is obviously a mole at FAB for the EY and KW reports and a Spencer email to be leaked to outsiders. At least somebody is outraged and trying to make things right. Perhaps someday you will be seeing leaks coming from the KTI findings, also? I sure wouldn't want to be holding this long when that happens.

  • Reply to

    Concerns from the 2Q 10-Q

    by gumshoe_waldorf Aug 18, 2014 3:01 PM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 10:20 AM Flag

    =his headline is saying that these two service providers will be involved in the investigation as independent service providers.

    No it doesn't. The headline doesn't use the word internal. It couldn't be more clear:

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

    Why do you keep lying about things anybody can verify? Unbelievable. My "stealth basher" theory looks more and more likely all the time. Are you intentionally trying to set me up to bash this stock with your ludicrous lies and misinformation? If you think you are helping... you are either really stupid or mentally ill.

  • Reply to

    traded 990 shares this morning

    by uneducatemeplease Aug 20, 2014 9:42 AM
    lbcb321 lbcb321 Aug 21, 2014 10:13 AM Flag

    =I have accounts with Etrade & 2 other Brokers and none of them allow shorting a stock below $5

    The brokers allow it... they just might not allow YOU to do it. It is illegal for a broker to allow you to make an "inappropriate trade" based on your experience level and total capital. Call them and they will have you sign a release saying you are an experienced investor with full knowledge of the risks and you will not hold them liable for your losses.

    You will probably say I am lying again without verifying this. Oh well, I have educated a lot of people on these boards, but there are always the clueless who will go their own way in the dark.

  • The "new" Beacon Power is doing a tiny project on an Alaskan island. Before all you newbies rush out to buy this stock... BCONQ is an empty shell with no assets and no operations left over after bankruptcy. This stock does NOT represent ownership in the now operating company which is a privately held subsidiary of Rockland Capital and does not trade publicly.

    "The 165-kilowatt flywheels project to store energy from TDX Power Inc.’s hybrid wind and diesel plant on Saint Paul Island in the Bering Sea will cut fuel use by 30 percent, Beacon, a Tyngsboro, Massachusetts-based company that was sold in bankruptcy in 2012, said today in a statement. It said the implementation of the project has already started."

    3 pennies and a million dollar market cap for an empty shell is hilarious. Looks like the manipulators loaded up again hoping to con a few more clueless people.

  • 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.


Trending Tickers

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.