Unfortunately we've already seen that play. All US investors get is what the insurance policy Loeb holds will pay. Which in past instances is just a few cents on the dollar.
MIGHT is the operative word. What you really mean is that Seiden MIGHT offer Ren a sweetheart deal so that he can collect all the legal fees owed him by shareholders. If that's the case, investors could only get pennies a share as they have in prior settlements.
So I still remain in the wait and see camp. It's over when its over and we will only know then if there is a substantial recovery or no. You are all bright promises and assurances as if you know the future; while in reality, although progress has been made, the end result is still rather murky.
So I get 1 out of 10 even though I never predicted which way Chinese courts would rule. All I said was that Chinese courts have ruled both ways and that we will have to wait and see. So what will you say when the court case is announced? Or do you really thing Ren is just going to roll over and let Seiden steam-roll him with out a fight?
Because DHF will drop in price as it is now. As rates go up, DHF becomes worth less. Will it go all the way to 12%? Who knows - one can just hope.
Ren would not be doing that as a non-employee and public citizen. Are you crazy?
Instead he would be asserting his rights as a Chinese CEO against outsiders. You can't just lump together the Chinese and HK corporations - they are separate entities. The Chinese companies Ren runs are not "their" company - instead there is only a contractural agreement between the Chinese and HK companies.
Seiden may have control of the HK Corporations but that still means nothing unless Chinese courts rule against the separate Chinese companies that Ren is the CEO of and for the HK Corporations who have a contract. It still looks like this is all going to take a long long time.
If there are any naked shorts left, why would they be in a panic? The stock is only trading at 40 cents and there are still well in the money since they shorted @ $8.
You forgot the most import step of all. As Chinese courts have ruled both FOR and AGAINST foreign shareholders in the past - the question now is will they rule against Ren or not?
Ultimately what everyone is waiting for is for Chinese courts to rule in favor of Seiden against Ren. And since there isn't even a court date set for that - the fat lady isn's anywhere close to the door or about to sing.
More military spending is good for the economy. Of course its not good for the national deficit - but no one seems to really care about that. Some future generation will come up with a miracle save.
Actually I hope the Fed DOES raise rates. I'm tired of receiving so little in dividends. I'd much more enjoy getting 12% instead of 8 or 9%. Plus if the Fed can raise rates without crashing the system - that's a sign that we aren't stuck in the Japan deflation funk forever.
See how wrong you are?
The 10Y spiked and all dividend players have taken a beating.
Maybe Nobody considers the 10Y - but we successful traders surely do!
FFC and all dividend players are way over bought. None of them trade at reasonable rates. However, if we are entering a deflationary world and are all doomed to the Japanese curse, we are stuck with low payout ratios. The lesson of the last few years has been to buy the dividend payers on sell-offs after VIX spikes above 17. Let's see if that remains true going forward.
Tony, its not their investment advisors. Due to artificially low rates forced by the Fed, there just aren't any high paying bonds left to buy. Look at JNK paying less than 6% for example. Once upon a time Junk Bonds paid 10% or more. The Fed has totally distorted markets.
I would say never again. Go to CEFConnect and look at the long term chart. The path over time is down as dividends are cut over time; plus now the Fed is indicating that they are going to raise rates. Of course maybe the Fed is lying.
It actually looks more like a buy here than it has in a while. However, rates are rising and junk bonds are selling off as illustrated by JNK. Maybe investors really are preparing for the Fed to raise rates next year after all. Still, I'd buy this on any rebound in price.
Follow the Google link I mentioned. No they don't follow Presedence! Don't confuse our court system with theirs. Although they are now attempting to create "guiding cases."
You are entirely right - except that so far Seiden hasn't gained control of anything within China.
The courts have never ruled VIE structures to be legal. But at times they have made rulings that favor US investors - while at the exact same time making ruling that don't. There is no presidence in Chinese law, that's why they can do whatever they want.
Wiscon does not control and operate anything. They only have legal papers entitling them to earnings.
US investors CAN NOT own Chinese assets according to Chinese law. What part of that don't you understand?
Google "How Chinese companies bypass laws against foreign investment restrictions" and read the first article about the Alibaba IPO.
Here is the first sentence:
A company in China is 100% owned by domestic parties, allowing it to obtain all necessary licenses to operate in a particular sector. It signs service contracts that give a foreign-owned onshore enterprise operational control and the revenue from its business, without conferring ownership rights. The onshore foreign-owned company is a subsidiary of an offshore holding company that is listed.
You really need to read the entire 10K for yourself. That is exactly why VIE structures were set up - to bypass Chinese laws against foreign ownership. The VIEs say they aren't in violation of Chinese laws since the shell is only entitled to earnings - not assets which would be illegal.
From the 10K:
The payment of dividends in the PRC is subject to limitations. We may not be able to pay dividends to our stockholders.
We conduct all of our business through our subsidiaries incorporated in the PRC. We rely on dividends paid by these consolidated subsidiaries for our cash needs, including the funds necessary to pay any dividends and other cash distributions to our stockholders, to service any debt we may incur and to pay our operating expenses. The payment of dividends by entities established in the PRC is subject to limitations. Regulations in the PRC currently permit payment of dividends only out of accumulated profits as determined in accordance with accounting standards and regulations in the PRC, subject to certain statutory procedural requirements. Each of our PRC subsidiaries, including wholly foreign owned enterprises, is also required to set aside at least 10% of their after-tax profit based on PRC accounting standards each year to their general reserves or statutory reserve fund until the aggregate amount of such reserves reaches 50% of their respective registered capital. Our statutory reserves are not distributable as loans, advances or cash dividends. In addition, if any of our PRC subsidiaries incurs debt on its own behalf in the future, the instruments governing the debt may restrict its ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to us. Any limitations on the ability of our PRC subsidiaries to transfer funds to us could materially and adversely limit our ability to grow, make investments or acquisitions that could be beneficial to our business, pay dividends and otherwise fund and conduct our business.
All investors were warned, now we will see if the warning is valid or if Seiden can make an end run.
From the 10K:
You may experience difficulties in effecting service of legal process, enforcing foreign judgments or bringing original actions in China based on United States or other foreign laws against us and our management.
All of the assets of Suoke Clean Energy, Suo'ang New Energy and Shenyang Energy are located in, and all of our executive officers and our directors reside within, China. As a result, it may not be possible to effect service of process within the United States or elsewhere outside China upon our senior executive officers and directors who do not reside in the United States, including with respect to matters arising under U.S. federal securities laws or applicable state securities laws. Moreover, our Chinese counsel has advised us that China does not have treaties with the United States or many other countries providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgment of courts. As a result, our public stockholders may have substantial difficulty in protecting their interests through actions against our management or directors that stockholders of a corporation with assets and management members located in the United States would not experience.
**** Also US investors are only entitled to revenue and not assets according to the legal agreements; so Ren can argue in Chinese court that US investors have no right to physical assets. It's going to be interesting to watch this play out.