"The largest IPO in the history of the stock market is a Chinese company and it's a communist country," Cuban said in an interview with " Closing Bell ."
Therefore, it's difficult to enforce insider trading laws, he said.
"If someone calls up someone at Alibaba and says 'OK, I'm this bigwig and oh by the way you can tell me what's going on with Alibaba or let me tell you about the new gulag we just built in southern China.' There's no choice. What are they going to say, 'No, I'm violating insider trading laws in the United States?' They're not going to."
Get both out of the way and then the skies will clear, I hope.
Bring on an Asian listing or a buy out offer.
Feli, I understand your frustration but honestly I still believe the Board will act to serve all shareholders. The CGA attack and the continuing California legal action has likely resulted in the Board deciding that a US listing and the expense of SEC filings is simply too expensive and of limited value for CBEH in the future.
I understand The BCSC has concluded it's case against Carnes and will likely issue a decision in February. Apparently the SEC provided most of the evidence through an interview conducted in 2012 and entered as evidence this week. My earlier criticism of the SEC is withdrawn as they did the lions share of proving fraud and acting contrary to the public interest in A*L's attack on Silvercorp (SVM).
I have noted your request but I think we should give the Board and advisors more time to make things right.
I was wrong about the Sino Clean cash position, as of last F/S in 2012, Sino's cash was $66 million. It is CGA that last reported $3 million and which I confused with Sino Clean. The receiver's PR makes for interesting reading.
You are absolutely right, my reason for discouraging a settlement is that most of the money goes to the shyster lawyers. Getting rid of the legal action will move CBEH to either an Asian stock exchange listing or a buyout. I notice on the Sino Clean Energy board some interesting discussion on the receiver's progress, unfortunately for them, there is little cash and the business prospects are not great.
It is not a class action. The Puerto Teachers retirement fund and their lawyers are continuing the action. Sherb's insurers settled for $400k, likely all going to the Abraham law firm whose next expense is examination of Gao and three or four other defendants in Hong Kong. I believe Abraham is hoping Gao will settle. My advice to CEO Gao, is do NOT settle, drive the hours and expense to the stratosphere. GEO team and likely A+L have NOT won on the Oct 1 attack of GGA. CGA is current on all filings and survived a A+L attack a few years ago, Is this the start of attacks every few months? Each attack must cost the shorter's at least $100k so it does not take much to recover the cost. So where is the SEC, is it in bed with the shorts and the media who lap this up or is it defending investors and funds?
2014-11-26 18:00 ET - News Release
BEIJING and SALT LAKE CITY, Nov. 26, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Sino Gas International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company", OTCBB: SGAS), a Utah corporation engaging in the development of natural gas distribution systems and the distribution of natural gas to residential and industrial customers in small- and medium-sized cities in the People's Republic of China, today announced the completion on November 26, 2014 of the merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the previously announced Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 3, 2014, as amended by the Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated April 16, 2014, and Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 2, 2014 by and between Prosperity Gas Holdings Limited, an exempted company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands ("Parent"), Merger Sub Gas Holdings Inc., a Utah corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") and the Company (the "Merger Agreement") providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was approved by the Company's stockholders at a special meeting held on August 6, 2014, at the effective time of the Merger (the "Effective Time"), each share of Company common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time was converted into the right to receive US $1.30 in cash.
The plaintiffs counsel will probably go through $100k of the Sherb $400k settlement through first class tickets to HK + 5 nights five star accommodation, dining at best restaurants and 12 hour days at $600/hr.
ORDER RE: LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANTS XINCHENG GAO AND GAlHONG Ll (DOCKET NO. 291) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is denied. However, the Court orders that the depositions of Xincheng Gao and Gaihong Li take place in Hong Kong no later than December 19, 2014, on dates coinciding with the previously-ordered depositions of Albert Pu and Wenbing Wang, such that all four of these depositions occur during the course of a single trip to Hong Kong. 3 No later than October 7, 2014, the parties shall meet and confer and set dates for the depositions of Xincheng Gao and Gaihong Li, and, if they have not already done so, the depositions of Albert Pu and Wenbing Wang; the parties shall then notify the Court of the scheduled dates. *See attached Order.* (es) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
In laying out the commission’s position in his opening, counsel Derek Chapman argued that the case “is about dishonesty and greed, and dishonesty and greed by Jon Carnes.”
The other four companies named with CBEH were not revoked until about five weeks following the deadline for appeal. Unless CBEH requests revocation it is likely the final order will not be made until January. Somewhere a grey market will exist for CBEH until the California litigation comes to a close. I believe the RBSM resignation is related to the Sherb settlement and caused furor in X'ian. That's when all went silent.
Wait out the California court action and the SEC revocation process.
I am dismayed by the attack dog approach of the SEC, seems to me the auditors resignation could been investigated by the SEC and reported on to the Judge. I encourage any shareholder to call, write or send an email to James E. Grimes Administrative Law Judge. The following paragraph provides details.
Should you determine, based on your assessment of these factors, that your case is one that might be of interest to the Commission, please send us copies of the relevant materials, including any decision on review and the briefs of all parties. In your covering letter, which should be directed to the General Counsel, please discuss the issue or issues you believe warrant Commission participation, and tell us the date on which any amicus curiae brief filed by the Commission would be due. Our address is Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington D.C. 20549. You may also contact us by telephone at (202) 55l-5130.
I wonder if the SEC knew about the Sherb settlement when they said this on Oct. 14th. If so did the SEC have a duty to dig deeper to give the Judge the full story.
"Moreover, on October 13, 2014, China Integrated's counsel advised the Court by letter
that RBSM resigned as an auditor on October 9, 2014, and that "it will not be possible for
[China Integrated] to meet its goal of being current with its filings by the end of this
month." (Supp. Welch Decl., Ex. 6.)"
RBSM resigned following the Sherb (the S in RBSM) settlement.
It seems probable that Lexington who could be RBSM's insurer said no more involvement with CBEH.
The timing is right and if true casts doubt on tmbiogen's "RBSM Resigned = Fraud" post on Oct 15.
Folk's obviously it does not make economic sense for CBEH to maintain a US listing. The shorts will attack again just like they did with CGA around Oct 1. The Sherb settlement gave Abraham $400 k to distribute and my bet is PRTRO will see very little. What's the point of feeding the US legal system and the shorts, it has to stop, the SEC remains silent so the only recourse is to be a private company or seek an Asian listing.
You can buy close to $4 cash for .11, beats LV odds.
Obviously gave Abraham law firm ammunition to go after remaining defendants and is probably why CBEH has gone dark. RBSM resigned shortly thereafter. Link at bottom will take you to Settlement document.
9 (a) The Settlement Fund
10 2.1 Sherb, through. its Insurer, Lexington, shall pay the total maximum
11 amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to a separate, interest-bearing
12 escrow account designated and controlled by the Escrow Agent on behalf of
13 Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, as follows: (a) no later than ten (10) business
141 days after preliminary approval of this Settlement by the Court. Lexington will
15 deposit $45,000 to be used for Notice and Administration Costs expended prior to
16 the Final Approval Hearing (pursuant to the terms set forth in ¶5.2, and subject to
17 the Supplemental Agreement defined in 17.3); and (b) no later than tell (JO)
18 business days after the Effective Date (defined in ¶7A) Lexington will deposit the
19 remaining balance of $355,000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the Stipulation to
be executed by their duly authorized attorneys dated as l October , 2014.
& TWERSKY, LLP
Stanford search Case 2:11-cv-02559 California
a. Financial Stake
While Waterford has neither withdrawn its motion nor acknowledged that it does not have
the largest financial stake in the litigation, it reports losses of only $23,744.26. That amount is
far lower than Puerto Rico TRS’ claimed losses of $433,419.26 using the first in, first out
calculation method (“FIFO”), or $394,253.87 using the last in, first out method (“LIFO”).29
Puerto Rico TRS’ financial stake is also higher than those of movants who have acknowledged that
they are not the presumptive lead plaintiff.30 Indeed, the Berkhouts were the only putative lead
29Puerto Rico TRS Opposition at 3-4.
30Shackleton Motion at 9 ($74,365.40, or $99,205.40 if shares of China Integrated are
valued at $0.00)); Lansing Motion at 2 ($171,219.00); Bristol Motion at 2 ($68,477.54); Van
Langen Motion at 1 ($223,750.00, or $343,451 if shares of China Integrated are valued at $0.00).
For the reasons stated in note 31, infra, the court does not believe it is appropriate to value China
Integreated stock at $0.00 for purposes of determining the presumptive lead plaintiff. Even if the
court were to conclude that such an approach were appropriate, however, Puerto Rico TRS’ losses
would exceed those of Van Langen.
The orders from last week confirm the PR TRS is continuing the action on its own or for the named plaintiffs only as the class certification was denied in August.
3. Conclusion Regarding Lead Plaintiff
For the reasons stated, the court finds that Puerto Rico TRS will fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class and that, at least on the present record, it is not subject to
unique defenses. It has also suffered the largest losses as a result of the purported fraud. Thus,
the court concludes that it is appropriate to appoint Puerto Rico TRS as lead plaintiff.
Response | Filed: November 10, 2014 | Entered: November 10, 2014
Larry Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc. et al
Other Statutory Actions | California Central
Reply (Motion related)
REPLY in support of MOTION for Order for Precluding Plaintiffs' Third Expert and Dismissing Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint with Prejudice 298 filed by Defendants Larry Goldman, Albert C. Pu, Christopher Wenbing Wang. (Hagan, Patrick)