Yes, I see the second case. They botched the grounds they were suing under and the court would not let them amend the complaint:
A New York federal court denied plaintiffs leave to amend a proposed complaint against the auditors of Advanced Battery Technologies Inc. for failing to adequately plead scienter in claiming defendants committed securities fraud by ignoring that the manufacturer's financial reports filed in China differed greatly from those filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as not properly investigating a fishy acquisition made by the company.
The Second Circuit backed that decision.
Plaintiffs argued that their complaint now includes allegations that auditors had access to ABAT’s conflicting Chinese filings and financial information and also included an expert opinion that no reasonable auditor would have failed to obtain those filings, according to the circuit’s written opinion.
This was the original ruling where the court would not reopen the case where the filing deadline was missed:
Ruble Sanderson’s attorneys failed to file Forms C and D with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on or before 9/3/2013. Forms C and D are basic information forms which the Court needs to perform its function.
Form C: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement
Form D: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Civil Appeal Transcript Information
I see now the second case number. Thank you for correcting me. The difference between myself and the delusional here is I will verify new information and correct myself. The delusional won't change their minds no matter how much verifiable information you give them.
I will agree there was SOME discussion of this case on its merits, but these attorneys were obviously inexperienced and didn't understand "scienter" and what should have been included in the original pleadings. The court didn't allow them to amend with what would have been winnable information
Really? You stopped at only 7 rambling, incoherent posts in a row? I just laugh at the ridiculous things you attribute to me that I have never stated. You fit right in on this board as you never back up anything.
What is the most hilarious, though, is you fell for the spoof alias of mine and answered it as though it were my posting. Just how stupid can one be to fall for such an obvious spoof alias?
Get a clue.
I have been consistent in my message for years. You are late to the party in trying to twist what I believe. My record stands for itself.
I am SO glad you are sticking around. I would like to hear your commentary when the SEC acts now that court activity has wound down. I don't like how the SEC has waited, but I understand that it was important to get the ruling from Delaware on whether or not a US holding company could withhold their books if their operating subsidiaries were in China. That was denied and is an important precedent for future cases.
=I guess for now you guys are safe that even if there is an OIP against ABAT, you will have some time before they get completely deregistered. It took them how many months with CBEH?
Not necessarily true. Here is the difference. CBEH was on the Grey Market and not an OTC Pink stock. It already wasn't being quoted by any brokers. That is why it wasn't suspended while the revocation process played out. Same with SCEI. They are Grey Market and not quoted by any brokers so they weren't suspended while the revocation process plays out.
The SEC is more likely than not to suspend trading in ABAT while the revocation process goes through the system.
=It depends on how SCEI plays out now doesn't it?
Seiden's attorney blatantly misrepresented the status in requesting the 21 day extension to answer:
"there is a possibility that the missing financials may be filed soon."
They have no way of obtaining the information to file many years worth of financials and that is a blatant misrepresentation of the prospects for filing. Seiden also has no right to intervene for SCEI since the entity is in default in Nevada. There is no legal entity to be registered with the SEC. All Seiden is doing is making sure he can pad his bills while he and his cronies (including Sutter) clear out whatever cash they can before the SCEI shareholders get officially wiped out.
Their other basis for delaying has already been ruled on many times by the SEC and was pure nonsense:
"Mandel also represented during the prehearing conference that SCEI’s shareholders would be harmed by the revocation of the registration of SCEI’s securities."
I have shown you the case precedence many times that the SEC doesn't care about current shareholders. They are the ones with the current information and if they wish to hold their shares, they know the risks. The SEC has the role of protecting an unsuspecting public from having those shares sold to them when they have no value. SCEI has ZERO grounds to fight. ZERO.
=Sell all your shares to the Chinese
You still don't get it. The Chinese aren't buying shares of the US holding company (ABAT). They already own the operating subsidiaries in China and the holding companies have no assets and are worthless.
If you look closely at the court proceedings in the Southpaw case, ABAT even claimed they didn't have access to the books for all of the operating subsidiaries. Sure sounds like they are admitting some of them are no longer owned or controlled by ABAT. How can you not even have access to the books of your own subsidiaries?
Al Gomez has the ability to find out who the registered agents are for all the subsidiaries in China. How come he only mentioned Harbin is still operating and then he pretty much left? Sure seems like he confirmed Dongguan and Wuxi are shut down and/or no longer ABAT subsidiaries. Did you sell your shares yet algomezus? If so, would you care to elaborate on what your investigators found?
=ABAT has not been dark.
= News about new product introductions have recently been stated.
You mean the one where they claimed to have the first fast-charging lithium titanate battery in China and other companies had batteries with those specs over 5 years ago? I proved that was a blatant lie. Didn't you go back and verify what Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) has been producing for many years? How about the Toshiba battery that also has been produced for years with those specs?
They flat-out lied in some of their recent PRs and even plagiarized another PR pretty much word for word while attributing direct quotes to Foo that were made by another. I know you read the Southpaw docs. Can you really not put 2 and 2 together? ABAT tried to manipulate that case by implying they were coming current on filings so the judge wouldn't grant an inspection of their books that would confirm fraud to any outsider.
This was verified when the March 31st date passed without the promised filings. They also promised to be more transparent and communicate more often and it has now been many months once more since they were heard from. It is just absolutely amazing how someone can fall for the same lies and manipulation into the FIFTH YEAR!
=Then on its own, Foo and abat suggested they would try to become a performing entity again. While that was pending, southpaw became involved and tried bullying again and we went back to the status quo.
LMFAO! It has been PROVEN this idiot is clueless as to the timeline, yet he STILL persists in offering this fantasy version of what really happened. Google southpaw abat. Scroll down to the first PDF file. This is a 29 page document directly from the Delaware courts. On page 4 you will find this quote:
"On March 7, 2014, Southpaw sent ABAT a books and records demand (the “Demand”)"
That is the undisputed factual representation in the official court record when Southpaw approached ABAT demanding they release information to them. The court suit was filed shortly after when they failed to come to an agreement. It was Monday, November 3, 2014 when ABAT put out a PR announcing its intention to become fully reporting.
Hmmm... which came first... November 3, 2014 or March 7, 2014? We aren't even CLOSE to this being an accurate statement:
"Then on its own, Foo and abat suggested they would try to become a performing entity again. While that was pending, southpaw became involved"
How can anybody be that stupid when spoon-fed the verifiable PROOF that anybody can verify independently? Southpaw got involved and contacted ABAT almost EIGHT MONTHS before ABAT stated publicly they would come current on filings. There are some awfully dense people here, but pdb3838 is one of the most clueless here. Can't comprehend simple FACTS.
I have also proven this is a totally false and clueless statement:
"neither the SEC or courts have any jurisdiction or power over Abat"
The SEC has jurisdiction over ABAT because this is the stock symbol for Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. which is registered with the SEC. That gives them de facto jurisdiction by law. The Delaware Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over ABAT because Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. is chartered in that state. Any US District Court where a shareholder resides has jurisdiction over ABAT as ABAT trades across state lines and is subject to federal securities regulations. Most federal lawsuits are filed where the company has offices which is why the vs. ABAT lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York where ABAT claimed to hold offices for years. By the way... they no longer have a US office listed. More evidence they have abandoned their US holding company.
You keep confusing jurisdiction with "power". Both the SEC and the US courts have jurisdiction over ABAT. This is proven by the court cases that have occurred and are occurring. Not one of them has been thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. Of course, as I have clearly stated for many years... this jurisdiction only applies to the US holding company. You think you are the first one to point out that the assets and parties involved are in the PRC and even though you can get judgments and court orders good luck getting them enforced? What a fool. Go back and review your law books and learn what jurisdiction is. ABAT is the US holding company that you and the other fools own stock in. Quit talking about Chinese operating subsidiaries when you are talking about ABAT... they are NOT one and the same and fall under different laws.
=As soon as silver makes a move to stay over $18 and then $20 and then...You should understand this
And you should understand your investing thesis is flawed. If you are "betting" on a rise in the price in silver... why are you buying stock in a questionable Chinese outfit? Why aren't you investing in a leveraged silver fund that will trade based on the price of silver and give you a much higher return than any miner?
Go trade USLV if you are SURE silver will climb to "over $18 and then $20 and then...". Of course, if you aren't sure enough to put your money on the rise in silver... then it is even more amazing you would hold said questionable Chinese sham company.
=ABAT plan on closing some plants during the first half of 2015 and reopen again the second half, after the retooling. The question, and I need short answer, Is any one on the board who had connection to the company knew that plant is now open and in operation ?
You are so gullible it is unbelievable. Didn't you see the court order in China that froze and seized the Dongguan assets? The "retooling" lie was just a cover so they could sell more shares and hide the fact they lost the factory. It isn't re-opening. At least not under the same ownership.
LMAO! Really? The "missing dollar" story puzzles you?
The 3 guys paid $27. $25 went to the hotel and $2 went to the bellboy. No mystery there.
Out of the original $30:
$25 went to the hotel. $3 went back to the guys and $2 went to the bellboy. Still adds up.
No wonder you keep falling for Chinese scams if this is how you interpret their financials.
EVERY ONE of the eleven went dark the same quarter or LATER than ABAT. It is a travesty the SEC has allowed them to trade this long, but their day of reckoning is coming ever closer.
=Upper Court agreed with the Lower Court and found Auditors not culpable.
Not true. That case was never decided on the merits, either. Pomerantz missed a filing deadline and was unable to get the case reopened. The auditors were certainly never found "not culpable".
The SEC banned EFP Rotenberg from taking on any Chinese clients. That tells you what the SEC thinks about their culpability in auditing numerous Chinese frauds and failing to do even the basics to verify what was laughable information.
It is interesting to note that it was the attorneys for the auditors that were always heard from even when it involved ABAT and ABAT's own attorneys did practically nothing.
=The updated briefs do contain revisions to the original appeal and the Court still dismissed the Case.
They weren't amending the PROPER things to create scienter. Once they had this information, the court would not allow them to amend the complaint. It is clear what happened from reading the synapsis on a legal site:
"A New York federal court denied plaintiffs leave to amend a proposed complaint against the auditors of Advanced Battery Technologies Inc. for failing to adequately plead scienter"
They could have made "revisions to the original appeal" as you state, but had they presented the proper information in the first place, things would have gone much differently:
"Plaintiffs argued that their complaint now includes allegations that auditors had access to ABAT’s conflicting Chinese filings and financial information and also included an expert opinion that no reasonable auditor would have failed to obtain those filings, according to the circuit’s written opinion."
Too late. Their original complaint did not eclipse the scienter requirement and the court didn't allow them to amend the complaint in a manner to show this requirement to go forward.
I stand by my interpretation of why the case was dismissed. It isn't that the Plaintiff couldn't prove it... it is because they didn't present the case properly from the outset and the court refused to allow them to amend it.
=Your real beef here is with China and ABAT, why take it out on the shareholders?
Nonsense. I have ALWAYS been on the side of the shareholders AGAINST those who harmed them. The delusional here have been siding with Foo and the ones who stole their money and won't do any of the basic things to restore any shareholder value. I only "take it out" on the manipulators like twisty who constantly lie and misrepresent the truth while playing both sides with multiple aliases. I have ALWAYS wished good luck to those who were taking a speculative gamble here and understood the facts.
Seriously, twisty... why are you so hung up on the irrelevant court case that never had any influence on ABAT or their ability to act like a real public company? Furthermore, why do you continue to act like you "won" something with the derivative lawsuit dismissal? It was for the BENEFIT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. Are you a shareholder or are you aligned with the interests of management? Throughout the entire past four years, you have continuously shown that you don't even understand what side you are on. Tell me how this was a bad thing for shareholders and you won by these actions going away:
A. ABAT shall establish a Financial Reconciliation Committee whose function is to oversee and establish rules to ensure that the Company’s year-end, publicly filed financial statements
B. ABAT shall establish a Related Transactions Committee to oversee and establish rules to ensure that any Company transaction is properly vetted for the purpose of identifying and disclosing any related parties.
C. ABAT shall adopt a policy that requires the Company’s substantive press releases to be reviewed by the Company’s CEO or the CEO’s designee, general counsel or outside counsel.
D. All material litigation, SEC or government investigations, will be publicly disclosed within seven days.
E. ABAT will set up a toll free voice mail box for anonymous complaints or comments from employees.
How horrible this would have been for ABAT shareholders. Sheesh... you sure are clueless, twisty.
=Your conclusion is extreme
No it isn't. ABAT put out a PR claiming... let me go back and get the EXACT quote:
"The fast charging lithium titanate battery is the first of its kind in the China market."
That is a blatant lie. Ask realdunce. He will tell you ALTI had a battery with those specs at least 5 or 6 years ago. Toshiba and others have had fast-charging lithium-titanate batteries in China for years. You continue with your straw man arguments. The issue isn't "technology sharing" as you are attempting to twist the discussion into. The point is that ABAT put out a complete lie in a public PR. It was such a blatant, laughable lie to anybody that has even a remote interest in following the industry that it makes their ineptness quite comical.
I will ask you one more time... have you made any attempt to verify this was a lie or are you so delusional that you just believe anything they say? Just incredible.
=A PR is a PR idiot.....Most technology is shared in the battery business.
OMG! Have you ever heard of PATENTS? The FACT is that ABAT claimed to have the first fast-charging lithium-titanate battery in China and it was an utter and complete lie with absolutely no basis in reality. I was able to easily debunk it just with the ALTI information. There were other companies that had these batteries up to and over 5 years before ABAT's claim.
You're losing it, sletner. Your circuitous argument is pure nonsense.
=Why do you believe they will not report first quarter?
Ummm... because the deadline has passed.
=What other reasons or evidence do you have for that statement?
Do you own a calendar?
Yawn... the juvenile impersonation continues. Take any year, month, week and probably day you wish and count the posts ABOUT me and BY me. The posts ABOUT me usually run in the 3 to 1 to 5 to 1 range. I am the only thing giving this board "credibility". It would sputter out without me posting as the couple manipulators with all their aliases would have nothing to talk about.
=It concludes with the court suggesting ABAT provide the requested partial financial data to Southpaw under the condition Southpaw not trade for one year (on non public information).
Where did you find this? The LeGrow recommendations have been out for a long time. The court refused to state Southpaw could not trade for one year. They said that would constitute the state court enforcing SEC rules and they would not do this. That is the same reason they refused to order ABAT to produce financials publicly. That would mean they were enforcing SEC rules and they would not do this. I think you are lying once more, twisty. The LeGrow recommendations clearly stated it was up to Southpaw to decide if the information they received was nonpublic information under Regulation FD. For you to say the court made any conditions on Southpaw about not trading for one year is totally made up. Please provide the passage stating this.
= If Paritz has not completed the audit ABAT may be charged with contempt.
Why? ABAT wasn't under any court order to produce financials through Paritz. The court specifically stated they could not and would not enforce SEC law. As usual... you are as clueless as ever and are lying and misrepresenting the facts.
Of course all of this is moot anyway as far as the upcoming SEC action. The Delaware court action is extremely limited in scope. It is not a class action situation and only applies to the Delaware Open Records Law and the very limited nature of how ABAT needs to comply with Southpaw only regarding this law. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the bigger picture of ABAT's actions and inactions ultimately resulting in the SEC making the stock go poof.
I will await you producing the passage where the Delaware Chancery has ruled Southpaw cannot trade for one year when the court specifically stated they would NOT consider this as a condition since it would mean the state was enforcing federal securities laws.
=But lbcb, you told investors on this message board FOR YEARS that ABAT must release audited financials?
I never said they "must" release audited financials. I said they are REQUIRED to. Many companies have failed to make their required filings and been revoked by the SEC.
= Maybe it's YOU who should be taken to court?
Go for it. All I have to say is counter-suits are a real bear. I back up what I post while you make up things and post outright lies even when confronted with the FACTS and exact quotes from official documents.
=Read my posts over the last three years. They list as much information as I can find regarding the company and court activity.
Your list of confirmed lies is numerous. You used to claim ABAT bought back millions of shares even though I showed you the small amount it actually was. You stated for months that Abat Connection in Spain WAS the ABAT you hold stock in even though it was proven to you it was a separate distributor.You continually lied about the court cases. You claimed all court activity was ending in August of 2012, November of 2013, December 1, 2014 etc., etc. Your lies are numerous and well-documented. Even the longs here now understand what a conman you are and how you have played both sides with numerous aliases. You even lied about the current action saying ABAT was being pressured to publicly release financial information and Southpaw had a one year trading ban when I proved these were lies from the official documents. I provided the exact quotes from the official court record. How come you never back up what you claim?
=I support legal action to attain audited books.
That is a lie. You did not support the Derivative Lawsuit which was FOR THE BENEFIT OF SHAREHOLDERS and demanded coming current on all required filings among other things of benefit to shareholders. You are either too stupid to know what side you are on or are getting info from management like Sutter did to help them perpetrate the fraud.