Moatable Inc ADR (MTBLY)

[Matmak]

40 USD :) to cut my losses, lol.

[downthehatch]

"normal levels"?

The level of the stock is almost entirely dependent on the outcome of the Shareholder derivative action, filed in 2018 by HengRen and some other shareholders.

The settlement that was proposed would have provided a direct payment of about $25 to every current shareholder, but the judge declined to accept the settlement as written.

See my earlier post today for what can happen at this point.

[Matmak]

Let's hope the stock rises again to normal levels.

[downthehatch]

I think there will be an appeal of the ruling. Settlements are favored, and I think the judge made a mistake. Here's my thinking:

While the judge has not filed his ruling yet, I guess we know he had two objections to the settlement:
1) He wanted the "record date" to be in 2018 when the spinoff occurred
2) he thought the $100 million for legal fees was excessive

Let's look at each of these objections, and what happens next, from a legal perspective.

First there are two choices, once Judge Borrok files his ruling, declining to approve the settlement.

1- They can come up with a new proposed settlement, addressing the fees issue and the "record date" issue, or
2- They can appeal jhis ruling

In the first option, the fee reduction would be a positive. The record date is more difficult. To address this, you have to look at the nature of a derivative action.
The derivative action is the company's lawsuit against the directors/ third parties who injured the company by their actions.
If the company settles the action, the payment comes NOT to shareholders, but to the company, since the company is the actual plaintiff, represented by the plaintiffs as a "derivative action"

The problem with paying the company is that both the injured shareholders benefit and the shareholders who actually perpetrated the crime. That's why the settlement was structured as it was, so as to ONLY compensate those who were innocent shareholders.

The question becomes, how do you have a new settlement that only benefits the "innocent" shareholders at the time of the crime or bad acts?

If you say the injury took place at the time of the inadequate payout, then you need to determine how much of the injury was to the company's ongoing operations, and how much was not reflected in the payout. That's hard to do, which is why the settlement made sense. One could argue that the major damage was to the continuing operations of the company, since the innocent shareholders did get a payout, which in today's dollars, and with the ADR ratio at the time, was fairly good. (The plaintiffs argued that in their reply brief to the settlement objections)

Plus, the settlement needs to address the problem of guilty parties benefitting from the settlement.

So it's very difficult to come up with a new settlement that meets both the judge's objections.

I think it's more likely that the Plaintiffs appeal the ruling, and argue that the judge is misunderstanding the nature of a derivative lawsuit.

That is, that a derivative lawsuit is not a shareholder's action, but an action by the company brought BY shareholders, on behalf of the company.

And the only reasonable way to make the company whole is to pay the company today, what the current value of the injury is (the $300 million settlement amount). And then, you pay that only to shareholders who are innocent of wrongdoing, which is why the settlement agreement required a "record date"

That's what I think confused the judge. It's not really a "record date" like the date of a dividend.

It's LIKE a record date because you have to set the date when the proceeds due to the company are distributed, but only to "innocent" shareholders.

So I think it's more likely they file an appeal here, and get an appeals court to look at how the judge misunderstood the derivative action.

So the proposed settlement is a very fair and equitable resolution. given the nature of the action.
I think they have a good shot at prevailing on an appeal, and still making the settlement happen.

[Chrysanthemis]

This was somewhat unexpected. How probable do you think it is that there won't be any settlement?

[downthehatch]

interesting analysis.
And I suspect that you are correct.

[Chrysanthemis]

Now let's consider the number 7.754.623.

This is an interesting number, which I think explains quite well why the price of a Renren ADS oscillates in a narrow band just above 25 USD.

7.754.623, which I will call Z below for brevity, is simply the minimum 300 MUSD settlement amount divided by the approximate 38.7 that the defendants have to pay for each ADS held by a non-defendant.

Now, I would predict that, if the settlement is approved as proposed, the records are going to show that the non-defendants will hold Z ADS's (or something very close) on the record date.

Because this is the optimal number of ADS's that the defendants would want non-defendant shareholders to hold on the record date in order to minimise their losses.

By definition, if the non-defendants hold Z ADS's at the record date, the defendants will have to pay 300 MUSD, which is the least they can get away with.

Assume now that the number of ADS held by non-defendants currently is superior to Z.

Then the defendants have a very strong incentive to buy ADS's at the current 25 USD. Because for each ADS they buy for 25 USD, they avoid paying 38.7 USD later.

Assume now that the number of ADS currently held by non-defendants is inferior to Z.

Then the defendants have a very strong incentive to sell ADS's at the current 25 USD. Because they will anyway have to pay the minimum 300 MUSD stipulated in the settlement as long as the non-defendants own less ADS than Z, and each ADS that the defendants sell now for 25 USD can probably be picked up after the record date for only a few dollars, at most.

On this basis and assuming that the settlement will be approved as proposed, we see that the defendants will buy or sell shares to make non-defendants own Z ADS's on the record date, and the payment for each ADS will be at least:

300 MUSD - 100 MUSD (33% attorney's fees) - 950 kMUSD (costs and expenses) - perhaps 2 MUSD of other administrative costs

divided by Z.

This computes to 25.41 USD, and if the settlement will be approved, this should be the very minimum paid out.

Now, there is clearly an upside to this amount, because if the judge awards less than 100 MUSD of attorney's fees or the remainder of RENN actually is worth something, the gain will be higher. But 25.4 ought to be the floor.

A final thought: if non-defendants currently hold a number of ADS's significantly different from Z, we may see quite some movements before the record date - upwards with a limit of 38,7 if the non-defendants hold too many shares and downwards with a limit of 2-3 USD in case they hold too few (from the defendants' perspective).

But the large number of ADS's that changed hands when the settlement was announced would possibly have allowed the defendants to optimise their ownership without any problems, unless there are some restrictions for some reasons which stops them from buying or selling.

[downthehatch]

Settlement hearing scheduled for Dec. 9, 2021 by Judge Borrock.

[downthehatch]

Given my record this year on RENN, I'm willing to bet that my prediction is more accurate than anyone at the Motley Fool.

I've been right on the future price of RENN ever since I began accumulating this stock last year at under 4.00/share.

It's been a bit volatile over the past year, but the overall direction has been consistently UP!

[downthehatch]

This explains the performance of RENN the last few days, I suspect.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/13/why-is-everyone-talking-about-renren-stock/

Since very few of us have actually read the court docs, most rely on "analysis" like this moron.

I think he is way off, especially on what the payout will be.

Almost as bad as the Motley Fool article from the week before, that seemed to be unaware of the settlement entirely!!!

Here's the previous article from Motley Fool:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/11/3-stocks-to-avoid-this-week/

[downthehatch]

Bought some this morning under 25.00..... I think even if the payout is only $25 (which it seems would be a worst case number). there is still at least $2-3 in value in the underlying company, with Kaixin, the chime real estate software, etc.

S0, my calcualtion is that the absolute MINIMUM value here is about $27-28, which means at $25, you have a 10% gain built in.

Certainly not the screaming buy this was at 9-12/share, but in this market, a guaranteed 10% gain ain't bad.

[downthehatch]

Although I am no specialist in this sort of case, nor with the New York Supreme Court, Judge Borrock has impressed me as being very dedicated and interested in moving cases along without delay.

I would not be surprised to see a scheduling order issued today or tomorrow, with a hearing date set before Thanksgiving if the Court schedule can accommodate that.

[Chrysanthemis]

Sorry! It's a pity you had to read through all that - I edited the post within the 15 minutes to add the page with the 33%, but you had apparently already opened the post.

Though I have little experience of legal procedures, 100 MUSD also seems very much to me.

Another question: how long could we expect to have to wait for the judge to issue the scheduling order?

[downthehatch]

Good research!
Had to do a lot of reading to get to the notice that contained that 33% limitation.

The papers note that the lawyers worked on a contingency basis, meaning their entire fee as contingent on a successful result.

Generally, contingency fees are lower in the earlier stages of litigation, and higher when the case reaches the trial or even appeals stage.

But the law also says the fees are to reimburse the fees and expenses of the lawyers.

And the final number, or percentage is up to the judge.

Personally, I think 100 million is high, simply because it is such a large real number.
It's not at all unusual for lawyers in contingency-type cases to get 33% of a settlement or judgment, but it is very unusual for the recovery amount to be $300 million.

Judge Borrock has been a pretty down-to-earth judge in this case. His rulings have been reasonable and straightforward, and common sense.

When you look at the 2 plus years of work the lawyers did, that's a lot of hours, and a lot of work. But $100 million is a HUGE amount of money for a firm to recover, and my sense is that Judge Borrock will reduce that amount to a certain extent.

Frankly, I think the current price is too low.

It looks like the MINIMUM payout per share would be $25.00, and then you still have the existing company, which may not be worth a lot, but is certainly worth at least $1-2 a share.

Plus, you have the potential that the judge awards less than 33%, which you will know once the judge rules, which will be just before the record date.

So I can see why the market is acting the way it is, but the price could go higher.

[Chrysanthemis]

I have been digging around, in particular on Seeking Alpha, and the main reason why the stock is not trading higher is that in the version of the settlement published on the NY court website, the attorneys' fees were set at a maximum of 33% of the settlement amount, plus costs (page 61, point 6, second paragraph):

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=48WNUe//xXJs6bnjh0GyJQ==&system=prod

This percentage (which does not figure in the version filed with the SEC) has been taken by the investor community to mean that the actual fees will be 33%, translating into a payment per ADS of 25.8 minus costs and administrative fees.

The question is how probable a 100 MUSD attorneys' fee would be in this case?

Any views?

[downthehatch]

I suspect it is more about discountuing a future payment.

No ome really knows how quickly this payment will be made, given the fact that it is such a rare event.

Once there is clarity on when the payment will be made and the exact amount, the price will move closer to the setlement amount, I'm sure.

For now, I'm certainly holding what I have.

[Chrysanthemis]

Thanks! I still do not understand why the price gravitates so strongly towards 25 USD.

The only explanation I find is embarrassingly simplistic, apart from the fact that it is wrong or unconfirmed in every detail:

1. The settlement is worth 300 MUSD.
2. There are 24 million outstanding ADRs.
3. Half of them belong to defendants and are not entitled to compensation.
4. 300/12 = 25.

Any other ideas? Possibly my imagination isn't powerful enough.

P. S. the "analysis" provided by Motley Fool made me think that they merit their name over there.

[downthehatch]

Great analysis, and I suspect your estimate is quite close to the actual payout amount.

Surprising to see tha price still hovering at $25, but there are a lot of idiots out there who don't understand what this settlement means, including one at Motley Fool:

3 Stocks to avoid this week- Motley Fool

[Chrysanthemis]

Thank you - the legal and administrative costs were indeed part of the information I was missing. For the record, and to serve as food for thought for other forum dwellers, below my thoughts on the current share price.

In somma, as I read the settlement, the ADS may currently be spectacularly underpriced, despite its recent surge. And we do not need to dig further into the settlement than its fourth page - here a link for easy reference:

https://ir.renren-inc.com/static-files/9ce86392-176c-4ca3-a287-98a2ffb5f0a5

I have entered some line breaks in the quote below to make things clearer, at least for myself:

"In connection with the Settlement, the Defendants will create a common settlement fund (the “Settlement Fund”), which amount, before any reductions for Settlement Fund Expenses (as defined below), will be the greater of

$300,000,000

or the sum of

(a) $38.6866 per ADS (as defined below) multiplied by the number of issued and outstanding ADSs held by Renren Shareholders as of the Record Date (as defined below)
and
(b) $0.859701 per Class A ordinary share multiplied by the total number of issued and outstanding Class A ordinary shares held by Renren Shareholders as of the Record Date.

“Settlement Fund Expenses” include:

(i) any taxes payable on any income generated by the Settlement Fund;
(ii) notice costs, distribution costs, and administration expenses;
(iii) any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court to the Plaintiffs’ counsel;
(iv) any other fees and expenses awarded by the court; and
(v) any administrator fees associated with the Settlement.

Renren Shareholders, defined as holders of Renren’s Class A ordinary shares and American depositary shares (“ADSs”), each currently representing 45 (sic!) Class A ordinary shares, as of the Record Date but excluding the Defendants and D&O Releasees (as defined below) will be entitled to receive a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, after deducting the Settlement Fund Expenses. “D&O Releasees” are individuals that served as Renren directors and/or officers in June, 2018 and specifically identified as D&O Releasees in the Stipulation."

So into the Fund goes 38.7 USD for every ADS and 0.86 USD per Class A ordinary share held by Renren shareholders at the record date. Note that the 38.7 USD is exactly 45 times the amount indicated for each Class A share.

Then some expenses are deducted. Assume perhaps 10% (30 MUSD) as you suggest (and your guess is clearly magnitudes better than mine).

And then the fund is divided pro rata between the very same shareholders, because the definition of "Renren shareholder" used to determine the value of the fund is the same as the one used to determine who is entitled to money from it.

And unless I miss something, it therefore seems mathematically certain that there will be 0.86 USD in the Fund for each Class A share held by an eligible shareholder at the record date, and that consequently that same shareholder can count on getting 0.86 USD per Class A share from the Fund (minus expenses), each ADS counting as 45 Class A shares.

This is also supported by the final part of point 8 of the document (page 21):

The Administrator shall pay or direct the payment to each of the record shareholders as of the Record Date, excluding the Defendants and D&O Releasees, such record shareholder’s pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount, which shall be not less than the amount of $0.859701 per share - or $0.826746, if, as set forth below in Section F, Duff & Phelps does not pay the Duff &Phelps Contribution thereby triggering the modification of the True Up definition as set forth in paragraph 4 — before any reductions for Settlement Fund Expenses.

On this basis, the settlement would actually be worth some 38 USD per ADS (minus expenses of, say 5 USD), and the share price should appreciate by roughly one third from current levels, prudently assuming that the rest of Renren is completely worthless.

But the share trades at 25 USD, very precisely, so there may be something wrong with this line of reasoning.

[downthehatch]

Thanks for your thoughtful meassage.... responding here as I'm not premium.

I think you are overall correct, but the big unknown at this point is what the administrative and legal costs will be.

While I suspect the curren 25.00 price may still be below the eventual payout, the legal expenses allowed by the court to the Plaintiff's lawyers could be substantial, as they have been working on this for almost three years, and there are 4 law firms listed for the Plaintiffs, including Reid Collins & Tsai.

Adminstrative expenses are not likely to be too much- maybe less than a million. But legal fees allowed could well be in the 20 million range, which would reduce the payout by 10% or so. Of course this is a wild guestimate, but simply looking at all the filings in this case, and the voluminous exhibits, tells me there are a LOT of billable hours that they will try to have included in epxenses.
That's the only big ?? at this poimnt, IMO.

[downthehatch]

Part of the equation always has to be that the payment is some time in the future- which is not precisely known.

So there is a time discount.

Second is the uncertainty of exactly how much the payment will be, and that has yet to be precisely calculated.

I suspect we'll get more clarity in the coming week, as many of these issues are not difficult to figure out.

Then there are the tax consequences, which always have an impact.

Lot's of moving parts- probably why the price bounced around so much Friday.

[Chrysanthemis]

Curiouser and curiouser! cried Alice.

I still fail to understand why the ADR is currently traded at 24 USD.

[Chrysanthemis]

Still trying to assess the value of the settlement. Two more intriguing jigsaws:

1. The ADS, both according to the settlement text and this SEC filing, currently represent 45 shares of ordinary Renren shares, not 15.

http://edgar.secdatabase.com/1952/110465919071845/filing-main.htm

The amount to be paid into the settlement fund is around 38.7 USD per ADS and around 0.86 USD per ordinary A share.

The ADS and ordinary shares held by defendants do not count and they are not entitled to any part of the payout.

2. The settlement contains provisions for a situation when Duff&Phelps will not pay, in which case the minimum 300 MUSD amount will be reduced to 288.5 MUSD.

[downthehatch]

Glad for your good fortune.

I'm not sure about the numbers, because I think the share count is for the actual Chinese company, and the RENN shares we can buy are ADR's, 1 share representing 15 shares of the Chinese stock.

and also, not sure what the insider count is as of the settlement date, which is the date that counts.

So while you may be right, you may not. Apparently, the market isn't sure either, as the price swings today indicated.
I sold some, and kept a chunk, since I'm not sure myself.
P.S. Feel free to give me a great tip sometime, to thank me!!

[Chrysanthemis]

Dear downthehatch,

First a very big thanks to you for drawing my attention to this stock. I bought shares at 9.03 so I've more than doubled that money, much thanks to you.

Now, thinking about what the settlement can be worth, I remember you writing that 49% of the stock is held by insiders (in April, though). From what I understand, the settlement provides for a cash payment to the minority shareholders only, not to insiders.

Thus, with 24 M shares outstanding (iHub's figure) the minority owns some 12 M shares. Then the settlement should be worth at least 25 USD per share, which at current levels ascribes a negative value to RENN.

This seems strangely low. What do you think; do I miss something in my back-of-the envelope calculation?

[downthehatch]

NEW YORK, Oct. 8, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Litigation powerhouse Reid Collins & Tsai LLP today announced the terms of a direct pay cash settlement totaling at least$300 million and resolving the In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litigation (NYSE: RENN). (The aggregate cash payment to Renren's minority shareholders and ADS holders may exceed $300 million depending on the final determination of the number of shares and ADSs held by non-Defendants). Pending in New York state court, the action alleges a complex scheme by Renren insiders to take the company's billion-dollar investment portfolio for themselves.


$300 million settlement is among largest ever derivative recoveries....precedent-setting case law to protect investors
Reid Collins Founding Partner William T. Reid, IV on the resolution of the Renren litigation: "This is an extraordinary result by any measure. It is very rare to settle a case for more than the damages that we originally pleaded. Yet indeed, from the vantage point of minority shareholders, we have recovered more for them in this direct pay settlement than the damage claim we set forth in the complaint. Obtaining jurisdiction over these foreign defendants was no small task, but obtaining derivative standing was an even greater achievement. What little New York law existed on establishing derivative standing under Cayman law was adverse, but the facts of this case and a thorough presentation of Cayman law nonetheless allowed us to establish that the minority were in fact entitled to pursue the company's claim under the 'fraud on the minority' exception to the general rule against derivative standing. I could not be more proud of what we have accomplished in Renren, and of our clients, including Heng Ren Silk Investments, LLC in taking on this significant and important challenge."

The shareholder derivative suit arises from a highly unusual series of interrelated transactions through which Renren's allegedly corrupt insiders took Renren's investment portfolio for themselves in 2018 to the detriment of minority shareholders. The complaint centers on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the transfer of Renren's most valuable assets, including a substantial stake in fast-growing lender Social Finance, Inc. ("SoFi") — for far less than fair market value — to a private company, Oak Pacific Investments ("OPI"), which is owned and controlled by Renren's CEO Joseph Chen and other controlling shareholders. Chen and affiliates stood on all sides of these transactions as major investors and/or directors in Renren, OPI, and SoFi itself, facilitated by Duff & Phelps, LLC, a financial advisor to a special committee of Renren's board of directors, who it is alleged aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.

"This is an important message American investors are sending to Chinese companies on our stock markets," said Peter Halesworth, founder and manager of Heng Ren. "U.S. shareholders will fight raw deals of bad actors from China in our stock markets."

Precedent-Setting Case Will Have Long Term Impacts for Cross Border Fraud and Financial Misconduct

In May 2020, Reid Collins defeated all motions to dismiss filed by the original defendants. In March 2021, the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department of New York State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of all the motions to dismiss and rejected defendants' arguments over personal jurisdiction and contending that plaintiffs lack standing under Cayman Islands law. In April, the New York State Supreme Court took the rare step of attaching all of the assets that OPI received in the 2018 transaction and required any sales proceeds up to $560 million be deposited in a New York escrow account.

Plaintiffs faced significant legal challenges to acquire U.S. jurisdiction over multiple foreign defendants and establish derivative standing under Cayman law. After an extensive investigation and litigation, Plaintiffs presented the complex details of the transactions and the conduct of the far-flung participants to the court, building a jurisdictional theory with which the court agreed completely and was affirmed on appeal. These wins have created new precedent to combat a growing problem in the financial sector – the difficulty in addressing fraud and wrongdoing by foreign companies (and related individual actors) publicly traded on U.S. exchanges.

The case is In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Index No. 653594/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Reid Collins, representing derivative plaintiffs as Lead Counsel in this action (alongside co-counsel Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A., Gardy & Notis, LLP, and Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP), successfully litigated these novel claims against an array of law firms, including: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; McDermott, Will & Emery LLP; Morrison & Foerster LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Goodwin Procter LLP; Holland & Knight, LLP; and Winston & Strawn LLP.

[davidsson10]

https://www.stocktitan.net/news/RENN/reid-collins-announces-300-million-settlement-in-renren-derivative-hs6xp5o120n9.html

[makinezmoney]

$RENN: Sweet runner now HALTED...... $23.40


WOwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww there she goes



NICE MOVES


GO $RENN

[Chrysanthemis]

Thanks for this! Very helpful!

[downthehatch]

Gap up this morning. Now the gap seems to be filling.

Will we have another run once the gap fills?
Buying seems to be strong; looks like RENN wants to go higher.

Don't fight the tape.

[downthehatch]

Keep an eye on In Re RenRen, New York Suprem Court Case# 653594/2018.

Filings can be accessed here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch

A settlement in this case would mean a huge repayment of assets back to RENN that were stripped away by CEO Chen back in 2018. The case is not going well for Chen and the entities that helped him strip out those assets.

[Chrysanthemis]

Yes, these last two months have been a true joy.

Wonder what's behind the movement, I haven't seen any news at all.

[downthehatch]

Looks like one of the best calls all year!!

[downthehatch]

UP over $2.00 this week.
Very nice.

Anyone hear any news about the derivative lawsuit? Any closer to a settlement there?

[StockpickerCAPC]

Subsidiary Chime Technologies - No Robots Need Apply: What Makes our AI Assistant so Unique.

source
https://chime.me/blog/no-robots-need-apply-makes-ai-assistant-unique

Chime Blog Team, Aug 25, 2021


Perhaps when you think about AI and chatbots you immediately think of robots and impersonal “static” conversations. While the interaction may be useful, it likely doesn’t feel personal. No one wants to be treated like a number or feel like they are talking to a robot (our team included!); they want to feel valued. Providing a personalized experience from the get-go is especially important given today’s uber competitive real estate industry.

That’s why we designed our AI Assistant
https://chime.me/feature/assistant
to be more than a simple chatbot. In fact, we named it the AI Assistant because it adds so much more value than that. Unlike any other product available in the real estate industry, Chime’s AI Assistant updates itself through Google’s machine leaning algorithm. That means it is learning, updating, and optimizing the flow of the conversation based on your specific conversions and what’s working. This personalization is the main element needed to drive optimal results and avoid any “robotic” conversations.

The design is key. Unlike others in the industry, ours is native to our platform – we don’t outsource, we built it ourselves! The AI Assistant is designed to be a lead generation tool but also an assistant that helps qualify news leads, reengage old leads within your database, and convert.

Our clients have experienced amazing benefits
https://learn.chime.me/top-real-estate-agents-rely-on-chime-ai-assistant
like doubling response rates and improving lead capture rates by 33% given improved speed of engagement. If you want to learn more about how our AI Assistant is so much more than your standard chatbot, check out our video.

To hear how clients are using it in real life – including how one used the Chime AI Assistant to turn a six-month-old COLD lead into a $1.6M dollar property under agreement – check out our webinar recording.
https://www.facebook.com/Labcoatagent/videos/160705025869501

[StockpickerCAPC]

Renren Announces Appointment of New Chief Financial Officer.

source
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/renren-announces-appointment-chief-financial-200000297.html

Mon, September 13, 2021, 10:00 PM

Renren Inc. (NYSE: RENN) ("Renren" or the "Company"), which operates several U.S.-based SaaS businesses, today announced that Chris Palmer has been appointed as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, effective September 6, 2021. Palmer succeeded Lucy Yang, who will continue to serve as Chief Financial Officer of Kaixin Auto Holdings (NASDAQ: KXIN).

"On behalf of Renren's Board of Directors and management team, I would like to thank Lucy for her numerous contributions and tireless work at Renren. I would also like to take this opportunity to warmly welcome Chris Palmer to the Company as we continue our quest to build and grow our portfolio of vertical SaaS businesses. His experience helping companies scale and achieve rapid growth will prove valuable as we build leadership market positions for our SaaS businesses," said Renren's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Joseph Chen.

Prior to Joining RenRen, Palmer served as VP Finance at Twist Bioscience, a Global manufacturer of Synthetic DNA. Prior to that, he was chief financial officer and chief innovation officer at Televerde, an outsourcer of Demand Generation and Inside Sales services. Mr. Palmer has also worked at a number of semi-conductor businesses, including Intel Corporation, where he served in a variety of roles spanning M&A, finance, and general management. Mr. Palmer started his career at KPMG, is a Certified Public Accountant, and received his MBA, with honors, from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.

About Renren Inc.
Renren Inc. (NYSE: RENN) operates several US-based SaaS businesses including Chime, a CRM and Marketing Automation platform, and Trucker Path, a trip-planning and business app for long-haul truckers. Renren's ADSs, each currently representing forty-five (45) Class A ordinary shares of the Company are traded on NYSE under the symbol "RENN".

[StockpickerCAPC]

Subsidiary Kaixin Auto Holdings Announces Promising POCCO EV Sales Forecasts.

source
https://ir.kaixin.com/news-releases/news-release-details/kaixin-auto-holdings-announces-promising-pocco-ev-sales

September 8, 2021

Kaixin Auto Holdings (“Kaixin” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: KXIN) today announced promising sales forecasts for the POCCO brand electric vehicles (“EV”) manufactured by Henan Yujie Times Automobile Co., Ltd. (“Yujie”), which Kaixin has signed a binding term sheet to acquire. According to Yujie, it has launched two EV models under the POCCO brand, MeiMei and DuoDuo. Since its debut in March 2021, the MeiMei model has sold more than 6,000 units. The DuoDuo model was launched in August this year. The combined sales volume of the two models is expected to reach 15,000 units and 50,000 units in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

According to data released by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, the sales of new energy vehicles in China were 1.194 million units in the first half of 2021, at a year-on-year increase of 205.4%, of which small size new energy vehicles accounted for about 40%. In other words, among every 10 new energy vehicles sold in China, four of them are small size vehicles. The POCCO brand focuses on the market segment of small size EVs at the USD$3,000 - $8,000 price range to appeal to the tastes of younger generation consumers in China. Specifically, MeiMei is positioned as "small and exquisite". The remarkable sales records in June and July demonstrate its high consumer acceptance. DuoDuo is positioned as "leisure and multi-function". Since the offline exposure of the DuoDuo model on May 26, 2021, its core advantage of large space with four seats has attracted widespread market attention. The online pre-sale is in full swing. The pre-sale has received more than 1,000 orders in the first 3 days, and the total pre-sale orders has surpassed 5,000 update to date.

Kaixin has successfully established its business model as a new retail platform for new and used cars. Through the planned acquisitions of electric vehicle manufacturers, Kaixin would quickly construct an eco-system from EV production to sales, joining the ranks of NIO, Xpeng and Li Auto as Chinese concept stocks for EVs. Industry analysis indicates that there are 600 million consumers for small size vehicles in China, and the accumulated sales of small size EVs are expected to reach 100 million units in the next ten years. Kaixin Chairman and CEO Mingjun Lin states: "The era of small size electric vehicles has come, and Kaixin will not be absent from this feast!"

About Kaixin Auto Holdings
Kaixin Auto Holdings is one of the primary dealership networks in the premium used car segment and new car sales in China. Supported by the rapid growth of China's used car market and leveraging its own hybrid business model that offers both strong online and offline presence, Kaixin has transformed from a tech-enabled financing platform into a nationwide dealer network that combines its own and affiliated dealers as well as value-added services.
For more information, please contact:
Kaixin Auto Holdings
Investor Relations
Email: [e-mail]

[StockpickerCAPC]

Subsidiary Chime Technologies Bolsters Customer Service Offerings to Personalize Engagement and Deliver Dynamic Resources for Growing Client Base.

source
https://www.streetinsider.com/Globe+Newswire/Chime+Bolsters+Customer+Service+Offerings+to+Personalize+Engagement+and+Deliver+Dynamic+Resources+for+Growing+Client+Base/18675738.html

July 14, 2021 8:30 AM EDT

Key hires, enhancements to onboarding process and expanded professional service options underscore commitment to superior customer service.

Chime Technologies,
https://chime.me/
an award-winning operating system for the real estate industry, today announced significant enhancements to its customer service offering including eight new hires, improvements to the onboarding process, new interactive support tools and extended professional services. A market leader widely commended for listening and responding to customer needs, Chime’s latest investments in its service department underscore the company’s commitment to delivering the resources and support agents, teams and brokerages need to be successful.

Quick Links
Check out our customer success stories
https://learn.chime.me/success-stories
Watch a new video with Chime’s Manager of Customer Service

Connect with Chime today!
https://web.lucrativ.com/web-form.html?form=f4e258bb04a240ba834ae41ac50690de

Chime recently welcomed eight new dedicated customer service team members to support an improved onboarding process, efficiently troubleshoot roadblocks, and deliver the highly personalized service customers need. In his new role, Chime team leader Steven Lopez will spearhead the growing Customer Success Program, Eric Thornley will serve as Program Manager and Nick Vargo Fiedler, formerly of Ylopo with deep expertise in onboarding, tech support and customer service, will lead the team in executing a more efficient onboarding process. This includes a new interactive guide to address common questions and ensure customers can get up and running quickly. The growing department also includes several new onboarding specialists and customer success managers to ensure regular, high-touch engagement, personalized to customer needs.

Chime’s new extensive library of useful webinars and how-to videos offer customers the option to continue to train at their convenience and with additional resources to be published regularly, customers can easily expand their use of the platform as their needs evolve. Chime also offers expanded professional service options including a dedicated IDX package to enhance the consumer experience, a CRM package focused on leads, pipelines and smart plans, and a custom package which includes both options and additional one on one support from the growing customer success team. Armed with the insight and tools needed to fully maximize the Chime platform, customers can now more confidently and quickly identify, manage and nurture leads, improve productivity and boost conversion.

“Chime’s reputation for listening to customer needs and responding with thoughtful enhancements to help agents work smarter, not harder, is truly engrained in the company culture and one of the reasons I was thrilled to come on board,” said Nick Vargo Fiedler, manager of customer service, Chime. “The company’s recent investment in this team and the expanded resources we offer, reflect an unwavering commitment to our customers and continuous improvement to our organization. I look forward to helping agents, teams and brokerages harness the power of our platform for long term success.”

To learn more, visit
https://web.lucrativ.com/web-form.html?form=f4e258bb04a240ba834ae41ac50690de
Join our Facebook Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/chimecrm

About Chime Technologies
Chime is an all-in-one Sales Acceleration Platform for the real estate industry headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Its award-winning productivity suite offers a robust set of features that help real estate professionals and teams of all sizes run and grow their business. Chime Technologies operates as a US subsidiary of Renren, Inc. (RENN).
For more information,
contact
[e-mail] or 888-682-4463,
or visit
https://chime.me/
Media Contact:
Sarah MurrayAttune Communications [e-mail]

[downthehatch]

New stipulation filed in the case of In Re: RenRen, Index No. 653594/2018 that ends the appeal of the Order of Attachment and the cross appeal, and stipulates that the defendants may convert their SoFi Bank Shares into shares of the new publicly traded SoFi, and must keep the shares in an escrow account in NewYork, until such time as their is %560 million in the escrow account.

So, their is no further risk of transfer of shares, and there will be $560 million in escrow, in case the Plaintiffs are successful in this litigation.

Filed yesterday!

[StockpickerCAPC]

As a reminder, regarding RENREN, INC. Derivative litigation, plaintiff, v. XXX, defendant.

Renren, Inc. Derivative Litiggation, Plaintiff, v. XXX, Defendant.

Court:Supreme Court, New York County, New York.

Date published: May 20, 2020

Citations
67 Misc. 3d 1219 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)
127 N.Y.S.3d 702

Index No. 653594/2018

Please read the full Indictment ( more than 50 pages) at:
https://casetext.com/case/renren-inc-derivative-litig-v-xxx/?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=P

[StockpickerCAPC]

Commercial Division Grants Order for Prejudgment Attachment Where Defendants’ Post-Litigation Transfer of Assets Could Frustrate a Future Judgment.

source
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/commercial-division-grants-order-for-7820833/

June 30, 2021



In In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division granted Plaintiffs’ order to show cause for prejudgment attachment against certain assets of defendants Oak Pacific Investment (“OPI”), Renren SF Holdings Inc. (“Renren SF”), and Renren Lianhe Holdings (“Renren Lianhe”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 653594/2018, 2021 BL 193420 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2021).) The opinion addresses whether allegations of defendants’ improper sale of assets for less than fair market value to frustrate a future judgment warrant a preliminary injunction or prejudgment attachment pursuant to CPLR § 6201.

Factual Background
Plaintiffs brought this derivative action in their capacity as Renren, Inc. stockholders to remedy alleged harms that Defendants caused to Renren through a spin-off transaction that Plaintiffs claim stripped Renren of its most valuable assets for a price well below fair market value. (Am. Complaint, In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 653594/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2021), at ¶ 1.)
According to the amended complaint, Renren began as a Chinese social media platform after Facebook was blocked from operating on the Chinese internet in 2009. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 2.)
In 2011, Renren went public, and its initial public offering (“IPO”) enabled it to raise over $950 million. Following its IPO, however, Renren’s social media business floundered. (Id. at ¶ 55.)

As Renren’s social media business proved unsuccessful, Plaintiffs allege that Renren’s Chairman and CEO, Joseph Chen, began to use IPO proceeds to transform Renren into a venture capital fund by making several investments into companies with preexisting connections to Chen. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
For example, in 2012, Renren invested $240 million in a financial technology startup, Social Finance, Inc. (“SoFi”). At that time, Chen had personally invested in SoFi and also served on SoFi’s board.

After Renren’s investment portfolio grew, Plaintiffs allege that Chen attempted to capitalize on inside information to take Renren’s valuable portfolio private through an unfair spin-off. (Id. ¶ 7.)
To execute the Transaction, Plaintiffs allege that Chen formed OPI as a holding company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Renren, and then transferred Renren’s investment portfolio to OPI. With Renren’s investments isolated in OPI, Chen and Renren’s controlling stockholders then caused Renren to surrender its entire interest in OPI. (Id. ¶ 9.)
But rather than distribute OPI’s shares to all Renren stockholders, Renren’s controlling stockholders allegedly presented Renren’s minority stockholders with a choice between
- (1) accepting an inadequate cash dividend or
- (2) participating in a private placement of OPI shares on unfair terms to the minority stockholders. (Id. ¶ 10.)

In the complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract in connection with Defendants’ alleged self-dealing Transaction, among other claims.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Prejudgment Attachment.
In April 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, or alternatively, for prejudgment attachment based on allegations that OPI transferred over 22 million shares of SoFi for a fraction of the shares’ fair market value after the commencement of this litigation. (In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 2021 BL 193420, at *1.)
Under CPLR § 6201(3), an order of attachment may be granted when “the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff’s favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts.”

According to the Court, prejudgment attachment was appropriate in this case because of the “post spin-off conduct of OPI,” including transferring major assets identified in the complaint at below market value while Defendants “slow rolled disclosure” of the amount of transferred assets in discovery. (Id. at *2.)
The Court noted that the “fact that the apparent self-dealing conduct continued after this action was brought raises serious concerns relating to OPI’s ability to render itself judgment proof or to otherwise secrete assets to frustrate a future judgment.”

Justice Borrok also reasoned that the fact “that the SoFi shares were sold so soon after the spin-off to OPI and for the defendants’ benefit” rather than for the benefit of all Renren stockholders suggested “that these assets were spun off without legitimate corporate purpose.”

The Court did not find any of defendants’ counterarguments persuasive. First, Justice Borrok rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because they had not proven all of the elements of a fraudulent conveyance. Even without proof of all of the elements of fraudulent conveyance, the Court found that OPI’s post spin-off conduct “appears to be prima facie evidence of the breach of fiduciary duty that forms the gravamen of the action.”
The Court also found it irrelevant that Defendants had proffered a valuation expert who challenged Plaintiffs’ valuation of the SoFi shares. Since neither fact nor expert discovery were complete, Justice Borrok found that there was no way to verify the accuracy of the information provided by Defendants’ expert’s analysis.

Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s order to show cause for a prejudgment attachment in the amount of $560 million, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. (Id. at *1.)

Conclusion
The Court granted an order to show cause for prejudgment attachment where Defendants’ post-litigation transfer of assets evidenced an intent to frustrate a future adverse judgment. The decision highlights the utility of prejudgment attachment to maintain the status quo in the event that a party appears to be disposing of assets to render itself judgment proof.

[Smooth_Legend]

Settlement can still happen also in near future as external pressure mounts. For me it’s more like a bullish sign that shows that even his lawyers didn’t believe that he had any chance to win the case. I think Chen is actually going CRAZY as to not settle is totally crazy. Trial outcome can leave him penniless.

[downthehatch]

Looks that way, doesn't it.

Maybe these new lawyers are to handle an appeal?

In any event, it's not a good sign for those expecting a settlement in the near future..

[Smooth_Legend]

Did J. Chen just hire new lawyers?

[StockpickerCAPC]

Subsidiary Kaixin Auto Holdings Announces Cooperation with Leading RV retailer.

source
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kaixin-auto-holdings-announces-cooperation-110000198.html

Tue, June 22, 2021, 1:00 PM

Kaixin Auto Holdings (NASDAQ: KXIN) today announced that the Company is in discussion with a leading Chinese RV retailer about cooperation and joint venture in exploring the fast growing RV market in China. The leading RV retailer operates its own RV dealerships and host a leading RV owner community website and RV expositions across China.

The Chinese RV market is entering a fast growing stage. The annual sales volume experienced a 50% growth over the past three years, with over 69,000 RV vehicles sold in 2020. The Company and RV retailer intend to collaborate in sales and rental of RV vehicles and explore opportunities in development and production of electric RV vehicles.

About Kaixin Auto Holdings
Kaixin Auto Holdings is one of the primary dealership networks in the premium used car segment and new car sales in China. Supported by the rapid growth of China's used car market and leveraging its own hybrid business model that offers both strong online and offline presence, Kaixin has transformed from a tech-enabled financing platform into a nationwide dealer network that combines its own and affiliated dealers as well as value-added services.
For more information, please contact:
Kaixin Auto Holdings
Investor Relations
Email: [e-mail]
https://ir.kaixin.com/

[StockpickerCAPC]

Renren's 2020 Annual Report: Revenue increased by 20% year-on-year, and CEO voting rights reached 48.9%.

source
https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/hkstock/ggscyd/2021-06-02/doc-ikqcfnaz8754734.shtml

June 02, 2021 20:18 Zhitong Finance APP

Renren.com (RENN.US) submitted a 20F report to the US SEC, disclosing the company's 2020 annual report and the latest shareholding structure as of December 31, 2020. The financial report shows that the company's 2020 revenue was 18.106 million U.S. dollars, compared with 15.085 million U.S. dollars in the same period last year, an increase of 20% year-on-year.

Financial summary
According to the financial report, 2020 revenue was 18.106 million US dollars, compared with 15.085 million US dollars in the same period last year; It recorded a loss of US$0.05 per share during the same period of the year.


Ownership structure
As of March 31, 2021, Joseph Chen, chairman, chief executive officer and director of Renren, holds 33% of the company's shares and 48.9% of the voting rights;
The company's chief operating officer and director James Jian Liu holds 5.4% of the company's shares and 1.5% of the voting rights.

[StockpickerCAPC]

SoFi, A Leading Next-Generation Financial Services Platform, to Become Publicly Traded following Business Combination with Social Capital Hedosophia V.

source
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sofi-leading-next-generation-financial-162000293.html

Fri, May 28, 2021, 6:20 PM

Social Finance, Inc., a leading next-generation financial services platform, and Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. V (NYSE: IPOE) ("SCH"), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, today completed their previously announced transaction to take SoFi public. The transaction forms a leading, publicly traded consumer-focused financial technology platform named SoFi Technologies, Inc. The combined company is expected to start trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 1, 2021 under the new ticker symbol "SOFI" for SoFi common stock and "SOFIW" for SoFi warrants.

SoFi raised approximately $2.4 billion in cash proceeds from the transaction to fuel growth, market expansion and development of new product offerings, as well as accelerate the Company's plans to expand geographically and build the first digital one-stop-shop for members to borrow, save, spend, invest and protect their money. SCH shareholders approved the transaction at a general meeting on May 27, 2021. CEO Anthony Noto and SoFi’s management team will continue to lead the combined company.

Anthony Noto, CEO of SoFi, said, "Today marks an important step on our path toward providing an ecosystem of products, rewards and membership benefits all working together to help our members get their money right. All of us at SoFi are humbled to reach this significant milestone in our journey of building a generational company, and we are grateful for the countless individuals who have contributed to advancing our mission of empowering everyone to achieve financial independence to realize their ambitions."

Chamath Palihapitiya, Founder and CEO of SCH, said, "As a leader and innovator in the financial technology space, SoFi has the opportunity to completely transform the consumer financial services industry with its digital-first ecosystem of offerings. We are excited to work with Anthony and his talented team as SoFi begins its next chapter as a public company."

As part of the business combination, two new directors, Harvey Schwartz, former President and co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs, and Dick Costolo, former Chief Executive Officer of Twitter, join the Board of Directors.
Noto said, "We are pleased to welcome Harvey and Dick to the SoFi Board of Directors, seasoned business leaders who each bring immense collective experience and highly relevant insights about finance, technology and operating a public company that will be beneficial to SoFi and its members."

Connaught acted as financial advisor, Credit Suisse acted as financial advisor, capital markets advisor and placement agent and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP acted as legal advisor to SCH. Citi and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC acted as financial advisors to SoFi and placement agents to the SPAC. Allen & Company LLC acted as a financial advisor to SoFi. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Goodwin Procter LLP acted as legal advisors to SoFi.

About Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. V
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings is a partnership between the investment firms of Social Capital and Hedosophia. Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings unites technologists, entrepreneurs and technology-oriented investors around a shared vision of identifying and investing in innovative and agile technology companies. To learn more about Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings, visit
https://www.socialcapitalhedosophiaholdings.com/

About SoFi
SoFi helps people achieve financial independence to realize their ambitions. Our products for borrowing, saving, spending, investing and protecting give our over two million members fast access to tools to get their money right. SoFi membership comes with the key essentials for getting ahead, including career advisors and connection to a thriving community of like-minded, ambitious people. SoFi is also the naming rights partner of SoFi Stadium, home of the Los Angeles Chargers and the Los Angeles Rams.
For more information, visit
https://www.sofi.com/home-2/
or download our iOS and Android apps.

Contacts
SoFi
Investors:
Andrea Prochniak
SoFi
[e-mail]
Media:
Rachel Rosenzweig
SoFi
[e-mail]

Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. V
Media:
Sara Evans / Kerry Golds
Finsbury Glover Hering
[e-mail] / [e-mail]
+1.917.344.9279 / +1.646.957.2279

Jonathan Gasthalter / Carissa Felger
Gasthalter & Co.
[e-mail]
+1.212.257.4170

[StockpickerCAPC]

Legal Proceedings

Source
https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-21-073367/
PAGE 69
May 27, 2021

On July 19, 2018, two of our shareholders brought a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of Renren, as a nominal defendant, against Joseph Chen, our chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors and David Chao, a former director. On December 5, 2018, another derivative suit was filed by a shareholder on behalf of Renren, as nominal defendant, against Joseph Chen, David Chao, several DCM entities, and Duff & Phelps, financial advisor to the special committee of the board of directors. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiffs in the two actions filed a joint motion to file a consolidated derivative complaint by February 1, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the court granted the consolidation motion and consolidated the cases under the caption In re Renren, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Index No. 653594/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.). On March 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the consolidated case against Joseph Chen, David Chao, the DCM entities, Duff & Phelps, and Oak Pacific Investment. The complaint alleges that the valuation assigned to Oak Pacific Investment for purposes of the OPI Transaction undervalued the assets held by Oak Pacific Investment by several hundred million dollars and that the director defendants used the OPI Transaction to enrich themselves at the expense of other shareholders. The complaint further alleges that Duff & Phelps and the DCM Entities aided in the alleged acts relating to the OPI Transaction and that Oak Pacific Investment knowingly received the alleged improperly transferred assets. There are no claims asserted against Renren, but Renren may be subject to claims by certain of the defendants. On May 1, 2019, the court ordered a schedule for the briefing of several threshold issues, including service of process, jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their claims. Renren and the defendants filed their motions to dismiss on these issues on May 10, 2019. On May 20, 2020, the court denied the motions to dismiss. Pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation, Renren and defendants Joseph Chen, David Chao, the DCM Entities, and Oak Pacific Investment answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2020 and defendant Duff & Phelps submitted supplemental briefing in support of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 3, 2020. On June 22, 2020 and June 23, 2020, Renren and the defendants filed notices of appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department of the decision on the motions to dismiss. On January 6 and 7, 2021, Renren and the defendants entered into a court-compelled mediation which failed to produce any agreement amongst plaintiffs and defendant class. On March 18, 2021, the First Department reaffirmed the initial denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2021, the defendant filed an amendment to the consolidated case against the defendants to enjoin additional defendants as well as allege that such defendants aided OPI in fraudulent conveyance to frustrate plaintiff’s recovery.

From time to time, we have become and may in the future become a party to various legal or administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. Internet media companies are frequently involved in litigation based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights and other allegations based on the content available on their website or services they provide. See “Item 3.D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—We have been and may continue to be subject to intellectual property infringement claims or other allegations by third parties for services we provide or for information or content displayed on, retrieved from or linked to our website or distributed to our users, which may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and prospects.” Although such proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the resolution of our current pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow. Regardless of the outcome, however, any litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management’s attention and other factors.

[StockpickerCAPC]

Directors and Senior Management
The following table sets forth information regarding our directors and executive officers as of the date of this annual report.
Directors and Executive Officers, Age, Position, Title
Joseph Chen, 51, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Director
James Jian Liu, 48, Director, Chief Operating Officer
Hui Huang, 48, Independent Director
Chuanfu Wang, 56, Independent Director
Cong Lin, 40, Independent Director
Yi Yang, 48, Acting Chief Financial Officer
Rita Rui Yi, 52, Vice President for HR
He Li, 37, Vice President for SaaS and Trucker Path
Michael McGowan, 45, Vice President of Sales, Chime Technologies

Joseph Chen is the founder of our company. Mr. Chen has served as the chairman of our board of directors and chief executive officer of our company since our inception. He is also serving as a director of Kaixin. Mr. Chen is a pioneer of China’s internet industry. Before founding our company, Mr. Chen was the co-founder, chairman and chief executive officer of ChinaRen.com, a first-generation SNS in China and one of China’s most visited websites in 1999. He served as senior vice president for Sohu.com after ChinaRen.com was acquired by Sohu.com in 2000. Mr. Chen holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Delaware, a master’s degree in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an MBA degree from Stanford University.

James Jian Liu has served as our director since January 2008 and chief operating officer since February 2006. Mr. Liu is also acting as a director of Kaixin and our interim Vice President for Games. Before joining our company, he was the co-founder and chief executive officer of UUMe.com, one of the earliest social networking service websites in China. He served as product management director at Fortinet in its early years and held a senior product manager role at Siebel Systems. Mr. Liu started his career as a management consultant with the Boston Consulting Group in China. Mr. Liu holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and an MBA degree from Stanford University, where he was an Arjay Miller Scholar.

Hui Huang has served as our director since January 2015. Ms. Huang served as the chief financial officer of our company from March 2010 to December 2014. From 2007 to February 2010, Ms. Huang was the chief financial officer and director of Cathay Industrial Biotech Ltd. From 2003 to 2007, she was an executive director and Shanghai chief representative of Johnson Electric Capital Limited. From 2000 to 2003, she was an associate of Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. in its principal investment area and executive office. From 1994 to 1998, she was an associate with the Boston Consulting Group. Ms. Huang received a bachelor’s degree in industrial foreign trade from Shanghai Jiaotong University in 1994, and received an MBA degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 2000.

Chuanfu Wang has served as a director of our company since May 2012. Mr. Wang is the chairman of the board, an executive director and the president of BYD Company Limited (HKG:1211). He has been an executive director of BYD Company Limited since June 2002, in charge of its general operations and overall strategies. Mr. Wang is currently also a non-executive director and the chairman of BYD Electronic (International) Company Limited (HKG: 0285). Mr. Wang founded Shenzhen BYD Battery Company Limited, the predecessor to BYD Company Limited, in February 1995. Before that he served as the deputy director of the Beijing General Research Institute for Nonferrous Metals from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Wang has received many awards, prizes and recognitions, such as Hong Kong’s Bauhinia Cup Outstanding Entrepreneur Award in 2000 and BusinessWeek’s “Stars of Asia” in 2003, among others. In addition, Mr. Wang was elected as a representative in the Shenzhen People’s Congress in March 2000, a member of the Fourth Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee in May 2005, and a member of the Fifth Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee in 2010. Mr. Wang graduated from the Central South University of Technology (now Central South University) in Changsha in 1987, majoring in physical chemistry of metallurgy. He received his master’s degree in physical chemistry of metallurgy at Beijing General Research Institute for Nonferrous Metals in 1990.

Lin Cong has served as our director since July 2020. He is also a director of Kaixin and Uxin Limited (Nasdaq: UXIN). He has served as the Vice President of 58.com Group since March 2017. Before joining 58.com, he was the co-founder and Chief Financial Officer of Youche.com, an used car dealer chain in China. Mr. Cong took the VP positions of Finance and IT with 58.com before establishing Youche.com, where he served as CEO from February 2014 to March 2017. Mr. Cong also served as management consultant with Boston Consulting Group from August 2008 to August 2009 and as an auditor with PriceWaterhouseCoopers in China from August 2002 to May 2005. Mr. Cong holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting from Tsinghua University and an M.B.A. degree from Stanford University.

Yi Yang has served as acting chief financial officer of our company since June 2020. Ms. Yang joined Kaixin Auto Holdings (Nasdaq: KXIN) in August 2019 as chief financial officer. Prior to joining Kaixin, Ms. Yang served as strategic investment director for Jomoo, a leading manufacturer and supplier of home products, such as kitchen and bathroom units, in China. Prior to that, she was chief financial officer at Wellong Etown, an internet-based logistics company. Ms. Yang has also worked at the Bank of New York Mellon as vice president and controller, where she formulated strategic financial plans, participated in asset restructurings, and worked on numerous large domestic and cross-border M&A transactions. Ms. Yang received a master’s degree in Computer science from Saint Joseph’s University in the U.S. She is a certified public accountant, and a member of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

Rita Rui Yi has served as vice president in charge of human resources of our company since October 2016. Prior to joining our company, Ms. Yi served as the human resource senior director of RealNetworks in charge of human resource business partner management work, covering both the greater China region and South Asia region. Prior to that, Ms. Yi also gained human resource management experience from ING Capital Life Insurance Company, General Electronic and Northern Telecom. Ms. Yi received a bachelor’s degree in tourism economy from Beijing International Studies University and received an MBA degree from McMaster University in Canada in 2001.

He Li has served as vice president of our company since 2014 and is now in charge of SaaS and Trucker Path. Mr. Li joined our company in 2011 and has since held various positions in research and development. Mr. Li received a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and a master’s degree in Software Science Theory from Peking University.

Michael McGowan has served as a vice president of sales for Chime Technologies, one of our U.S.-based SaaS businesses, since March 2019. Prior to joining our company, Mr. McGowan served as vice president of sales for Commissions Inc., a real estate based SaaS company headquartered in Atlanta, from 2017 to 2019. Before that, Michael was a regional vice president in the financial services and financial technology industry with Transamerica from 2014 to 2017. Mr. McGowan served in the United States Marine Corps before entering the corporate world, from 1993 to 2002, completing several combat tours of duty. Mr. McGowan earned his bachelor’s of science from Saint Leo University in accounting and his master’s in business administration from Arizona State University.

[StockpickerCAPC]

Form 20-F Renren Inc. - Annual and transition report of foreign private issuers [Sections 13 or 15(d)].

source
https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-21-073367/

Published: 2021-05-27 17:30:30
Submitted: 2021-05-27
Filing Agent: Toppan Merrill/FA
Period Ending In: 2020-12-31

Please read the full Report at
https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-21-073367/