states rbtsherman in a larger assertion. The question is how would a child of the 60s know who the Chinese government is backing? Rbt? Any answers or just more booshidder brand of balogna?
please put you articulate hvac sales power in force and explain what, precisely, you mean by this statement:
"The judge has said
I will rule of what chng owes"
This 3rd grade level of mumbling will no longer work for you rbt, tell us what the judge said, please. From what I gather it is CH 7 liquidation or dismissal, eh?
thanks for your input, but the issue here is an involuntary BK petition filed in NY by PRC creditors who are trying to effect a CH11 debt for equity thereby stealing the Shaanxi Province business from its current American ownership. Little bit different twist than what you have answered. Details details details.
to be correct, asic guy, it is rbtsherman who wants a U.S. BK court located in New York to enforce a contract written in the PRC. How does that correction grab you?
the promissory note likely has a provision that states where a legal collection effort will take place. In this case likely Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not New York. How can a legal obligation that is not certain in sum (it is disputed) be "collected" in a New York bk court? Bankruptcy courts are not collection agencies.
You say "enforce whats in the contract." What is a promissory note? What is a Lending Agreement? Where does the provision for warrant privileges appear? You state you have seen the note, rbt. Does the promissory note contain the due on default provision of the $17m associated with nonexercise of the warrant rights? So... rbt what jurisdiction is this note governed by?
(bk is an attempt to ch 11 debt for equity to steal the company as you know)
and who, rbt, can count on the things you assert on this board? You seem to think that a "baker's dozen" is eleven. You will make no great friends with deceit and chicanery as your act.
the problem with your statement is that "fast-times" Don Yang (Wharton-boy, Merrill man, and now Morgan affiliate) joined the Board of Directors in the year 2008, the same year the loan was made! Rbt you do not mean to imply that Fast-times Don joined the Board because he knew the loan he had made was a "bad" loan in need of immediately nurse-maiding from the very beginning? Even you rbt have agreed the solution was modification and extension and you would think that Fast-times Done might have considered that as part of his fiduciary duties as a Director of CHNG.
the class actions that I have looked at for this matter include, as defendants, certain of the Directors.... to include Q-Ji and the abax man himself, Don Yang. So how do these people suffer the shareholders of the company to pay for their failures to properly exercise their business duties?
Morgan Stanley sues in class action against Managing Officer of Abax, Don Yang as director of CHNG while Abax is a "morgan" as rbt puts it? If this does not approach the verge of insanity for the BK judge, then he is on the take or on the dope.
records show that on 9/30/10, Morgan Stanley reported owning 342,943 shares of the outstanding shares for CHNG. And rbt reports they, morgan are minority investor in ABax. Isn't this like another of those conflicts of interest?
"Morgan Stanley, through its Investment Management division, is a significant minority shareholder in the Abax management company." How does that make Abax a morgan, and what difference does that make in the larger swim of things?
Were the loan documents, the note, loan agreement, and security interest forms all in Mandarin or in English? Did the loan agreement stipulate under which jurisdictional district that disputes would be argued? And did the Arbitration portion of the note, per se, include determining the legal obligation in the agreement about nonexercise of expired warrant privileges?
If the Arbitration portion of the note has not been honored, it is likely that the BK (in New York) has little if no authority to act as a collection agency for some Merrill-men and Wharton-boys operating in Hong Kong as lending sharks.
Does Mr Ji, Q-Ji, the Shaanxi CEO of the CHNG entity have a fluent command of English? (assuming for a second that the loan documents are in english)
If memory serves ABAX in the Loan Agreement was allowed certain warrants that they, ABAX could exercise to purchase shares of CHNG for $7 per share. So if shares were selling at $24, ABAX could purchase for $7 per share. Nice sweethaht deal for the boys. It was also stated in the agreement that if ABAX did not exercise the Warrants, then CHNG owed ABAX $17m. Also a sweethaht deal for the boys. Now.... the ABAX interpretation of the Loan Agreement, not the note per se, but the loan agreement was that this $17m was also a due on default penalty.
So the warrants were not exercised by ABAX. Why not extend the warrants for another 10 years and force the boys to generate some earnings to put some meat on the bones of the warrants? (the $17m due on default is robbery (imo).
it is kind of "telling" rbt that the shareholders of the company have not had the financial information for the year end 2013, nor have they had the financial information for the Q-1 2014 and it is looking likely that the Q-2 financial information will also not be available. exDirector Yang stated the current management is trying to minimize the value of the company. What do you think about that rbt? Concerned about that at all? Is the tuna served for dinner going to be all bones?
"… management and board have ignored their fiduciary duties to creditors and shareholders of the Company and are trying to minimize rather than maximize the value of the Company in order to return as little as possible to its creditors and shareholders and favor instead the interests of the variable interest entities and their management and ownership. “
This farewell to company from Yang is quite revealing and its essential comment should be kept in mind. Indeed, my opinion is that it is Yang who is trying to minimize the value of the company so that he can steal it for a song from American investors. (just my opinion)
so... abax wants majority ownership of a vre? And CHNG currently possesses that ownership and abax wants the Judge to pass that CHNG ownership interest in the vre to abax? Will that wipe out all the debt now owed jointly by CHNG and the vre to abax?
The Judge cannot do this. He needs to know the sum certain balance owed to abax. This amount is not certain. And the Judge needs to know the value, the "fair value" of the vre that is being transferred from CHNG to abax in lieu of the full payment or refinance of the existing indebtedness.
you say that it is almost 100% certain that CHNG is going to lose the plant, but how can they "lose" the plant is they currently do not own it?
could you state, in short, what the BK proceeding results will be? I have read all sorts of your mumbled meanderings, but could you put your "professional persona" in force here and explain to us what is soon to happen? (certainly sounds like a ch 7 or dismissal) Make it clear for us, please.
the involuntary bankruptcy will be dismissed.
Only my guess. But if the PRC cannot resolve a minor minor issue of resolving a past due note obligation, then the ministers of corruption and judgement in New York should not waste any more time on the issue. But let me emphasize, only my personal opinion. (anxious to see what that raskal rbt thinks)
I agree with you. The point I have stressed to "rbt" several times is this: Why wouldn't ABAX simply foreclose or repossess its collateral, ostensibly the vre for the LNG plant, or the plant per se? I think the way that works involves a local Minister from the Ownership Registry supervising a sale or transfer of collateral similar to Sheriff's sale in USA. But if the paperwork is flawed in any respect, the local authority will not enforce the liquidation for value. Fortunately for the remaining shareholders, Shuwen Kang is a member of the local Communist Party. But imagine, a young trustee from New York traveling to Red China to travel further to the home district of Chairman Mao after the Long March, with the idea of "owning" assets in receivership with duty for maximum sale for benefit of creditors. And... for the boys at ABAX not to be cognizant of this. This is why I have always thought their effort was a lame attempt to steal all the shares from current shareholders in a ch 11 debt for equity. And.... I might add, therefore the drag of negativity by one rbt figure. (just my opinion)