Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 10:16 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

ZST Digital Networks, Inc. Message Board

mizesaw 44 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Nov 8, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    The 2:00 Deadline

    by mizesaw Jul 23, 2014 2:10 PM

    Keep checking for "File No. 3-15389" they have to issue an update soon.

  • Reply to

    3 months since last poster

    by callitht Jul 20, 2014 9:11 AM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jul 25, 2014 2:23 PM Flag

    An empty shell is an empty shell. Although there is a company in China connected tenuously to the empty shell via a paper trail. It is a company that the shell can not make a single enforceable legal upon.

  • Well today's the day and the 2:00 deadline imposed by Judge Murray has past. So will she default Duoyuan or just delay again. We should be finding out soon...

  • Reply to

    Important Question...

    by steverosse48 Jul 1, 2014 1:09 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jul 8, 2014 10:25 AM Flag

    No - we are stockholders of an empty US shell. The privately held corporation is still just that. The illusion all along was that we were entitled to its earnings. Something no Chinese court has ever agreed with and most likely never will.

  • Reply to

    Why?

    by ironyworks Jun 24, 2014 1:11 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jul 1, 2014 5:19 PM Flag

    No.

  • mizesaw mizesaw Jul 1, 2014 1:52 PM Flag

    The key word is MIGHT:

    "From a political perspective, this case might mark the beginning of a more open attitude to grant access to court hearings to foreigners. As reported by Chinese newspapers, this was the first hearing of the Court that foreign diplomats were explicitly invited to attend."

    Hopefully if does - we will see many similar cases in the future. However, since Sino got so much press, the Chinese may be treating it much differently than they would a no name company. Only time will tell.

  • Reply to

    Down 6/4 Due to Institutional Cash Out

    by barebuttbob2014 Jun 5, 2014 2:27 AM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 25, 2014 3:15 PM Flag

    Not if if goes down - since then you don't even get a tax write-off.

  • mizesaw mizesaw Jun 25, 2014 11:24 AM Flag

    And even worse is the fact that although ONP is entitled to those profits, they are not being distributed. Instead the Chinese company is retaining the profits.

  • Reply to

    Why?

    by ironyworks Jun 24, 2014 1:11 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 25, 2014 11:17 AM Flag

    So it could go back down 33%. Some idiot most likely put in an open market buy order and the MMs took advantage.

  • Reply to

    Good news

    by alsense Jun 23, 2014 11:11 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 24, 2014 4:11 PM Flag

    Who knows - he may be able to bribe the right people in China?
    It's a long shot - but it could work...
    And a recovery of 20% or so on the dollar is better than nothing.
    But it's going to be a long hard drive.

  • Reply to

    Down 6/4 Due to Institutional Cash Out

    by barebuttbob2014 Jun 5, 2014 2:27 AM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 24, 2014 3:33 PM Flag

    Maybe they are finally afraid of what happens now that interest rates are set to rise. It needs to drop down below $17.50 to be much of a buy.

  • The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has issued a staff report titled: The Risks of China’s Internet Companies on U.S. Stock Exchanges. The commission advises Congress on matters related to economic issues in China.

    The report focuses mostly on the variable interest entity structure and heavily cites this blog. There is nothing new in the report that has not been covered here, but it is a good summary of the issues.

    It is noteworthy that the Commission took up the issue. While VIEs are risky to investors, there is unlikely any serious risk to the U.S. economy from VIE problems. The report does point out the $18 billion lost by investors in Chinese reverse mergers. The market cap exposed to VIE risks is considerably higher. Certainly, having such a high level body raise this issue will increase investor anxiety ahead of the Alibaba offering.

  • The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has issued a staff report titled: The Risks of China’s Internet Companies on U.S. Stock Exchanges. The commission advises Congress on matters related to economic issues in China.

    The report focuses mostly on the variable interest entity structure and heavily cites this blog. There is nothing new in the report that has not been covered here, but it is a good summary of the issues.

    It is noteworthy that the Commission took up the issue. While VIEs are risky to investors, there is unlikely any serious risk to the U.S. economy from VIE problems. The report does point out the $18 billion lost by investors in Chinese reverse mergers. The market cap exposed to VIE risks is considerably higher. Certainly, having such a high level body raise this issue will increase investor anxiety ahead of the Alibaba offering.

  • Reply to

    Earnings Release on Seeking Alpha

    by ursassy May 15, 2014 8:27 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 24, 2014 8:11 AM Flag

    My point is the same as the SEC's. Avoid these small cap Chinese stocks like the plague!
    One can trade Baidu and Alibaba since they have huge trading volume and one can get out.

  • Reply to

    How to apply US law and Chinese law in actions

    by david090963 Jun 3, 2014 1:30 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 21, 2014 8:45 AM Flag

    Our government is completely toothless. The SEC can't even get papers served on DYNP in China for example. See SEC File No. 3-15389.

    There are a few test cases such as SCEI and ZSTN where Seiden is attempting accomplish things the Chinese way by bribing key players. Maybe he can buy and bribe his way into getting justice for US shareholders. If so, then that will be the path to follow.

  • Reply to

    How to apply US law and Chinese law in actions

    by david090963 Jun 3, 2014 1:30 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw Jun 19, 2014 10:57 AM Flag

    Your step 1 is correct, but not your step 2. The US holding company only holds another empty shell that is not in China. So that would have to be taken over too. And then since China does not even recognize all these shells as legal there, no court is going to rule in your favor.

  • mizesaw mizesaw Jun 12, 2014 4:16 PM Flag

    Lot's of Chinese CEOs did the very same thing - then they went dark and their stock was delisted eventually. You are forgetting 2 things:

    1. Yes the CEO made SEC filings on his buys ... but that is no guarantee that he wasn't also selling as fast as he could ... no reason to file on the sells if you feel the SEC is impotent in China as in fact is.

    2. Why should the CEO care about the share price of the US shell except for when he wants to offload worthless stock. He owns the real Chinese company and all its assets and no US authority can touch him if he runs off leaving the shell empty handed.

  • From File No. 3-15389:

    Ruling

    Rule 141(a)(2)(iv) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice allows service upon persons in a
    foreign country by, among other means, a “method reasonably calculated to give notice, provided
    that the method of service is not prohibited by the law of the foreign country.” 17 C.F.R.
    201.141(a)(2)(iv). I accept the Division’s representation that service by publication is not
    prohibited by Chinese law. Brief at 4.

    I GRANT the Motion and direct the Division to file an affidavit attesting to the fact that
    publication pursuant to Rule 141(a)(2)(iv) has been accomplished. See Alan Smith, Admin. Proc.
    Rulings Release No. 1056, 2013 SEC LEXIS 3648 (Nov. 20, 2013).
    2

    I POSTPONE the telephonic prehearing conference scheduled for May 27, 2014, to July 23,
    2014, at 2:00 p.m. EDT. I will default Duoyuan Printing if, after being served, it does not file an
    answer, participate in a prehearing conference, or otherwise defend the proceeding. 17 C.F.R. §§
    201.155(a), .220(f), .221(f).






    _______________________________
    Brenda P. Murray
    Chief Administrative Law Judge

  • mizesaw mizesaw May 26, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    "Federal law provides that a securities fraud claim "may be brought not later than the earlier of (1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation."2"

    But there have been lawsuits settled for pennies - basically a bribe paid to lawyers for a get out of jail free card. After 2017, Guo may be untouchable by further lawsuits since by then he will not have released any public facts that can be proven false.

    The question of the contract still remains though. The contract does say that investors are entitled to the "earnings" of DGW and DYNP. But without China backing the contract - so what?

  • Reply to

    Earnings Release on Seeking Alpha

    by ursassy May 15, 2014 8:27 PM
    mizesaw mizesaw May 16, 2014 1:36 PM Flag

    Looks great for Chinese management. Too bad that the empty shell trading in the US under the ticker BSPM doesn't entitle US investors to any of the assets or profits that will continue to remain in China. But maybe in the future laws will change - so who knows???

ZSTN
0.6650.000(0.00%)Jul 25 8:10 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
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.