so rbt, the big bluffer, fails to bring the goods. It's not only me who doubts you rbt, there was gust1avo and noble-dog within the past year.
you have nothing rbt. you are a boo-shiddar who cloaks misinformation in bad grammar. Why, rbt, would you spend so much time with this defending the position that the value is -0- even though you state that it is worth $0.40?
How's that job down at the Hvac factory going for you? You don't post all this garbage you post when you are supposed to working, do you?
rbt cannot remember he states. It is not a matter of remembering any assertion from plaintiff attorneys about the surrender of stock. Rbt's repeated assertions were and or are that the BK judge has stated that the the law suit plaintiffs would receive $6 and $2 respectively. The BK Judge has made no such assertions. And... rbt has been asked to provide a link or a statement from proceedings so asserting, but as usual the board booshiddar and purveyor of prevarications fails.
you failed to answer the question ( please explain the issue of short shares with respect to the $6 benefi?). your brand of mumbo jumbo like usual a diversion and a deception. Your answer to the question about the short sales?
and just what does it state? I have read the law 360 and it makes no report of any $2 or $6 allocations to plaintiffs in any lawsuit. Prove me wrong there rbt.
and... while you are at it, please explain the issue of short shares with respect to the $6 benefit. Does the shorter who borrowed the share receive the $6? Awkward question for those of you who operate at the third grade level, I know, but it is you rbt, who makes all of this stuff up, so please answer.
the insurance is D&O rbt. It has nothing to do with the lawsuits. The CH 7 is stating, without knowing, that the company is insolvent. i.e. theoretically, there is nothing available for any lawsuits. Do you have any idea of what an automatic stay amount to? All of the assets (CHNG has assets does it not, rbt?) are held in the BK, for the benefit of the creditors. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are not, let me repeat, are not creditors.
Rbt, show us some documentation or ling to your claim of $2 and $6 that you repeat over and over and over and over.... and then and over and over and over. I've heard that liars begin to believe their own lies.
"It is and courts so far look like they will win" rbt's comment about the two, now one law suit. Well... the lawsuits are not reopened. The auto stay in BK precludes this. The D&O claim is permitted by the BK judge, but has nothing, nothing to do with the the class-action law suit. The D&O insurance co will have to defend the claim by plaintiffs with their own attorney expense (after all the reds in china have no obligation due to the bk force on them) and the D&O Ins company will settle out of court for $7 or so and almost half of that will go to the attorneys for the class action plaintiffs.
The law suits, or suit, however, will be held in abeyance. And as all Americans know, innocent until proven guilty. The BK judge is aware of this, but for some reason, rbt writes as though the BK judge is parcelling out proceeds of liquidation as thought it was a litigation confirmed sum-certain. And it is not.
ahh, but rbt, you show your ignorance. The positive net income for each quarter was net after depreciation was taken. Are you practicing your devious ways again, or are you just unaware of these things?
When a company runs into a liquidity problem and cannot pay it’s short term obligations and then the long term debt is accelerated, the creditor forecloses or repossesses the collateral provided by the obligor. In this case, the Hong Kong creditor fails to foreclose or repossess, but rather forces an involuntary bankruptcy in the country of the USA and the state of New York, And in the mean time, the ten or so associated affiliates located in three provinces of the People Republic of China continue operation as going concerns. I have spread the quarterly income statements since 2009, the company has never failed to report positive net income. And the BK judge, another New Yahka seems to think, that CH 7 liquidation is a proper solution to this problem.
The business solution was modification of the long term debt, that simple. Even the board dunce, the devious rbt has agreed with this.
as a matter of personal ethics, I never say "buy" at any price. I still hold shares that I bought above $10. Neither the balance sheet, nor the income statement presented any alarm. This whole keystone kops performance of "no-value" is a fraud and you know it. You post with the style and intellect of a 3rd grader and well, it seems so American does it not? Slime deceit and chicanery.