Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Dipstick, I'm so happy you called of your own volition without a lawyer prompting you to do so. You are so lucky that you alone are then responsible for your communication, and a lawyer is not then responsible for what you may or may not say, or what you may or may not potentially induce the third party to reveal, as relates to the applicable code of ethics of the lawyer's jurisdiction. There's reasons why, for example, it's kinda hard for a lawyer to also serve as a private detective without coming into conflict with one or more rules of professional ethics. This is the basis for why a lawyer may possibly not be permitted to record conversations in some instances, among other examples.
-Andrew
I contacted DLA Piper yesterday to confirm they represent CCME. An attorney with DLA Piper spoke with me today and confirmed the representation. I don't see any further reason for anyone to doubt the existence of the representation. I also advise against contacting DLA Piper as they cannot share anything with you that I have not already shared without compromising their relationship with their client, CCME.
Before anyone asks me for more details, let me start by saying I have no further details and I am not offering any further details about that communication, out of respect for the attorney. I did not ask to use the attorney's name so I am not posting it here.
I am choosing to post this message, however, in light of comments brought to my attention that some anonymously questioned the existence of the relationship (despite it being in a press release).
After the attorney acknowledged the relationship with CCME, I explained the confusion over whether Fleishman-Hilliard (FH) did or did not represent CCME at one time on PR matters, and that shareholders are consequently skeptical of CCME announcements or rumors of professional representation by any prominent firm. I also explained that I don't want to ask about anything other than to verify the representation out of respect for their attorney-client privilege. In fact I specified for him not to answer anything further other than answering whether they do represent CCME.
The attorney was professional and polite. He affirmed that CCME is represented by DLP Piper. End of story.
To be clear, I did not ask whether DLA Piper can confirm retainer of PWC. If DLA says they are involved, this means they are aware of the press release and that is good enough for me. If there is something false about that statement, we'd find out soon enough as CCME would have to retract the statement via press release forced by DLA Piper.
-Andrew
dipstick55, a judge ruling is not so simply achieved. It takes more than an answer to the lawsuit. Watch the arraignment scene in My Cousin Vinny. even though that was criminal, it will give you a perspective on procedure.
The reply would probably include the word "Deny" many times without more specifics. Judge does not rule on anything basedona complained and answer. The case has to get more procedurally advanced before a judge makes a ruling. Also a judge has to be asked to make a ruling to do so, i.e. there has to be a motion on which to rule. A lawsuit is not a motion. Whether there's some motion would be interesting. Too broad to speculate. You've already got a chair, now it's time to watch.
-Andrew
An update to CCME.tv:
Any update shows there's life. Here it's iteration of the release on May 2, 2011.
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/press/p110502.pdf
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/press.php
-Andrew
Let's wait and see how CCME responds. What choice do we have? For all we know, the case settles without any answer to the complaint at all.
-Andrew
Still more institutional data (9) total. Some are interesting including:
Big increase:
VANGUARD GROUP INC 12/31/2010 611,905 385,479 170.25% $7,269
QUANTITATIVE INVESTM... 3/31/2011 82,600 82,600 New $981
Sell out:
RIVERSIDE ADVISORS L... 3/31/2011 0 (266,800) Sold Out $0
(This answers past questions about the large position held by Riverside Advisors...)
Some others with tiny increases or decreases or unimpressive data.
_______________
Message April 25, 2011:
Some Institutional data floating in... yes the below updated institutional holdings here reflect pre-halt trades. Anyway here's the data:
WESPAC ADVISORS, LLC 3/31/2011 0 (10,660) Sold Out $0
THREE ZERO THREE CAP... 3/31/2011 12,005 (1,290) (9.70%) $143
NOMURA HOLDINGS INC 3/31/2011 5,300 5,300 New $63
LAIDLAW GROUP, LLC 3/31/2011 50,005 250 0.50% $594
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EM (CALPERS) 3/31/2011 174,400 25,600 17.20% $2,072
BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVE... 3/31/2011 19,745 (17,950) (47.62%) $235
Source: http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=CCME&selected=CCME&FormType=Institutional
-Andrew
Might I point out that while a change of address reflects special attention to detail, how much did Loeb bill CCME to: 1) list an address that required correction; 2) file the correction; 3) highlight for all of us that the new address is not the once rumored new HQ in Beijing, and yet 4) once again include a typo in the company's Charter name:
"CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS HOLDING, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)"
The exact name in the Charter cannot be both "Holding" and Holdings. Unlike sticky posts, the Charter name follows Highlander rules: there can be only one.
For a big corporate firm like Loeb and Loeb, it would sure be nice to see "Holdings" pluralized on SEC filings (unless this is the setup for a too-poor-to-pay defense..) i.e. just one holding... or holding on for dear life, or holding on by a thread, or holding out for a miracle...
See for example this 2010 filing where "Holdings" was once pluralized.
-Andrew
5-3-11 8-K/A Change of Physical Address on recent 8K filing
Explanatory Note
On April 29, 2011, China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (the “Company” or “CCME”) filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to report that it received a letter from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC indicating that the Company was no longer in compliance with Nasdaq Rule 5605(c)(2)(A) (the “Original 8-K”). This Amendment No. 1 to the Original 8-K is being filed solely to correct the address of the Company on the front cover of the Original 8-K.
Source: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001144204%2D11%2D025662%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C05%5C03%5C&CoName=CHINA+MEDIAEXPRESS+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=8%2DK%2FA&RcvdDate=5%2F3%2F2011&pdf=
-Andrew
The hard part about stickies is that there can only be 4.
Sometimes information is consolidated into one and posted to maximize a slot.
Opinion stickies don't last nearly as long as informational stickies.
For anyone seeking to have something posted as a sticky with longevity, the best solution is to list information for and against a position, have a bold face main idea title, and include source links in the message. Consolidating much information or multiple announcements into one sticky also helps.
Avoiding saying anything too extreme unless a medley of opinions helps too.
-Andrew
(in capacity as Assistant Moderator)
Perhaps your colleague is confused between two famous Pipers:
Kung is gone because CCME would have replied to NASDAQ's recent proposed delisting letter that Kung is still on, made a filing as such with the SEC, and there'd then be no reason to be searching for a replacement.
Confusion may result from Kung being listed on the BOD on the disgracefully archaic socially challenged ccme.tv website.
Source: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/governance.php
-Andrew
CCME finishing out today 5/2/11 (date of Piper/PWC Press Release) at #11 with over 82,000 iHub views:
11 China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (CCME) 82,065
It's at a pre-halt level of viewership for the first time in a long time that I can recall. Hard to accomplish that without even trading for 40+ days (longer than Noah)... To bad that data is not tracked or saved.
Sources: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/most_read.aspx ; The Holy Bible. ;)
By comparison:
(CCME topped well over 500,000 on the day of the halt prompting Burrrrp to write "the world is watching"...
-Andrew
Little + cronies - Not only that but also that this quasi-mafia surrounds more than one victim at a time.
Look at it this way: CCME (or its lawyers) are finally learning.
An older CCME would have announced that CCME has retained PWC or a contractor who retained PWC for auditing, investigation, or forensic accounting review.
i.e. Apple or its distributor, when it was plainly just a distributor.
i.e. leaving open lots of possibilities through deliberately placed ambiguity.
Instead, today CCME shared the nuances without leaving shareholders to speculate about the possibility of an A to B (direct relationship) between CCME and PWC.
This is hopefully the first of several instances where CCME management/advisors can show their maturity.
Updating the website to something modern on all pages would be a welcome yet inexpensive step too.
-Andrew
Piper would not allow itself to be used in that way. Too much reputational risk with being associated with being misleading which is in violation of attorney codes of ethics.
Whether you like or dislike attorneys, attorneys like their licenses and also having a good reputation for integrity to then get considered for retainer by paying prospective clients in the future.
-Andrew
So far today, CCME is ranked on most read boards as follows:
12 China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (CCME) 70,728
It's at a pre-halt level for the first time in a long time that I can recall. To bad that data is not tracked or saved.
Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/most_read.aspx
-Andrew
You mean like showing up at the wrong bus depot in Inner Mongolia (pretending it's CCME's customer), deliberately mistranslating Chinese through wilful blindness to then issue a report in reckless disregard for the truth that then causes a dramatic drop in the value of a security in which the mistranslator has puts and shorted shares, recklessly or knowingly holding out bus count figures stated on an archaic webpage of an old third party website to then miscalculate by extrapolation the extent of a publicly traded company's total business?
Yeah, I'll agree that's fraud...
-Andrew
A fraud is something that is perpetrated on the investing public that implies premeditative and malicious conduct, intent to deceive...
eyedoc:
I would not say cynical as much as healthy-skeptical in the absence of even a glimmer of positive or potentially positive news from 2/07/11 through today (except the mention of 27,400/27,200 buses.
I'm not ready to answer the $8.00 question just yet. If someone were looking to buy a few hundred shares and I'd be kinda doing them a favor by offloading a few hundred at the snap of the finger (no transactional cost or time associated), I would sell a few hundred at 8 as a convenience to a friend, sure. It's not so simple, however.
As far as my motherload of shares, I'm not ready to comment on selling them or not because for these shares to be traded there necessarily has to be news, company reaction, company information, basis for trading again, some further detail, including now what PWC/Piper do (stay on or resign from the engagement, etc.)
Consider that the reaction to the alternative basis for delisting notice (lack of quorum on audit committee) is the retainer announcement today.
A bona fide "you will trade" on next market day announcement would IMHO beckon a company response in light of company's actions today. We might hear of a new CFO or a contract, for example. We might hear that the buyback is going to be utilized.
If we never heard from company at all, I might think going pink on no info casts far greater doubt on the company.
Also there's a difference between opening at 6 and trading up to 8, and opening at 8.
So I'm going to be cautious here and say I want to see more information before commenting on price I'm willing to accept to part ways with the motherload of my shares.
-Andrew
I'm not hungry for news as much as for the third party verified truth. If 1/2 the cash is gone or half the clients are fakes, that's fine, i.e. means business is viable and even potentially robust. Just the facts so we know what we own and how to calculate price relative to earnings, as well as failsafes to prevent the 'Amateur Hour' from getting ahead of itself in the future.
-Andrew
The date of retainer of DLA Piper was not stated. Could have been a month ago, today, March 11, or last week. News can come later.
-Andrew
Good point Naples.
Maybe what I said a month ago is actually happening:
"That's not stirring things up. A good lawyer will describe the outcomes of various contingencies as well as the law (including deadlines) as well as costs. Loeb has very surely done all this, as did whoever also advises CCME. I'll bet another tall tree that CCME has clean team and dirty team lawyers so they can get the best advice without compromising the ethics requirements that are incumbent upon the legal advisors. It's possible Loeb only hears the story that the dirty team lawyers advise to share."
-Andrew
Source:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61698784
On the issue of clearing themselves 100%, that would be quite an achievement. I have a hard time believing that someone, along the way, invested in CCME short or long did not (albeit illegally) have access to someone at some or each of the respective bank(s) who could pull up CCME's banking statements / records themselves to know for a fact whether there's something fishy going on. They would cross reference larger transactions to get a feel for missing cash or loaned out cash, etc.
Is it really that hard to get a Branch manager to pull up a record? This is China where DTT insists on the head branch statements only...
How big a bribe would that take? Or who in one's family would have to work at such a bank?
Or how about leaks directly from DTT to shorts...
-Andrew
ibox updates
Eyedoc, your message is as succinct yet comprehensive a positive message for longs since the halt. So it's now in the ibox as the counterbalance to some rather bearish and red-flaggy questions and references. Sticky posts (the first four semi-perma-messages on the message board) only last so long, and there are only 4. Effort is made to vary these between news and unique posts/thoughts/links.
In pursuit of a balanced discussion, despite the halt with hardly any news, the ibox continues to be maintained. Updates are added as new theories and information are posited. The ibox contains text of recent announcements, links, theories, and updates. There's pretty much a link in there somewhere to most every question or allegation, as well as company information.
The ibox is also rather up to date with present releases and information.
If there's something anyone here thinks is not in the ibox that should be there, please let me know.
-Andrew
(in my capacity as Assistant Moderator)
This announcement makes it somewhat easier to get a legit person to risk reputation to consider joining the audit committee.
This announcement makes it somewhat easier to get a legit person to risk reputation to consider joining the audit committee.
A measure of the "big bucks" for this could be between 500K or 1MM (based on what CCME paid for ordinary audit services in 2009). That does not include legal services, forensics, or other non-ordinary audit services.
-Andrew
Koufax:
CCME did not retain PWC directly or at all. DLA Piper retained PWC. It's a syllogism but keeps CCME's influence over the auditor's services removed from CCME influence.
It's interesting though. I like the idea that an above board law firm is watching what an investigating auditor does (as opposed to 'CCME and the Amateur Hour') -- sounds like the name of a 1970's band.
-Andrew
It should be noted that Jacky Lam is a former PWC auditor. Anyone know what Jackie is up to these days (besides wondering about the value of his 100,000 shares...
-Andrew
This is unquestionably the first truly positive news since the halt.
-Andrew
It always said big four. That did not change.
-Andrew
CGS - NASDAQ Tightens Scrutiny of RTO space:
Click here to read Bloomberg article.
-Andrew
Bin Laden Dead!!!
Bin Laden Dead!!!
Cheng would like to see shorts who are June 11 put holders also suffer more than he wants to avoid suffering for longs (IMHO). If he carries the ball to that line with the SEC, NASDAQ, shorts, and the financial media against him (an entire defensive line), that would really be something.
-Andrew
My message is revised.
-Andrew
CCME has not announced a new member of the Audit Committee and failed to meet NASDAQ compliance standards.
The more I read the press release from CCME, it just reads like CCME is definitively being delisted, end of story, without any further chance or leave to announce, file, or appoint a new Board Member on the Audit Committee. The time for cure seems to have passed.
We do not know what NASDAQ also wrote to CCME that wasn't published, i.e. warning letters and such.
So NASDAQ will likely have to announce an effective date for delisting. Whether there's some appeal process will have to be seen. (If they have an excuse, I'd like to hear this one!)
FUJIAN, China, April 29, 2011 /PRNewswire-Asia/ -- China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCME - News) ("CME" or "Company"), China's largest television advertising operator on inter-city and airport express buses, reported today that the NASDAQ Stock Market ("NASDAQ") has sent a letter to the Company to the effect that as a result of the resignation of Marco Kung from the board of directors of the Company effective April 7, 2011, the Company no longer complies with Nasdaq Rule 5605(c)(2)(A), which requires that the Company's audit committee consist of three independent directors. The NASDAQ Staff exercised its discretionary authority under Listing Rule 5101 to deny the Company a cure period to regain compliance with the audit committee composition requirement.
Seekingjustice2 notes that:
"The denial of the cure period appears to be within the discretion of NASDAQ under Rule 5101. However, NASDAQ cannot deny CCME the right to appeal any delisting under Rule 5815 that may follow should it fail to come within the requirements of Rule 5605(c)(2)(a) for its independent auditor.
Also, under Rule 5810(c)(2)(A), it appears that NASDAQ can't accept a plan for compliance for a deficiency where an appeal is currently pending before an adjudicatory body, as is the case here. That may explain why CCME received the deficiency notice, and possibly the denial of the cure period, but no delisting notice for the auditor violation. If it does get delisted for that deficiency it will have the right to appeal that decision under Rule 5815. The thought that the denial of the cure period somehow defeats the appeal process on either notice is inconsistent with these rules. And the operation of Rule 5810(c)(2)(A) suggests the argument that if there is a favorable outcome on the original appeal (who knows the answer to that) it might be hard for NASDAQ to then sustain a delisting (should it come) on just the auditor issue without extending an opportunity to cure."
-Andrew
CCME shareholders upset at hitpieces may take interest in this video of a discussion on Bloomberg television 4/29/11 about not just CAGC but also the short and distort method of attacking a China RTO stock. You may see some parallels to CCME. About 4 minutes in to the video, Glickenhaus discusses anonymous RTO hitpieces. He discusses bunch of macroeconomic stuff too in first few minutes before CACG discussion. The parallels to CCME are there. Much discussion relates to John Hempton and other shorts.
Whether Hempton or Glickenhaus is right or wrong about CAGC, it's at least refreshing to see any video coverage at all on a mainstream business network that runs contrary to the short and distort perspective of RTO China.
I wish he named specific laws violated instead of general statements of illegality. It would have been nice for him to at least say the words "The Securities Act" and perhaps some of that Act's specific language.
-Andrew
CAGC - About 4 minutes in to the video, Glickenhaus discusses RTO hitpieces on Bloomberg 4 29 11. Discusses bunch of macroeconomic stuff too in first few minutes before CACG discussion.
-Andrew
Don't we all wish CCME were the kind of company that would take any interest at all in what shareholders state publicly in a CCME discussion forum, but I highly doubt that CCME itself reads any YMB or iHub messages.
Yes, some companies have lawyers or PR people who routinely read what's being said online to ensure a healthy and honest discussion and not taint their stocks/ be prepared to respond to rumors. CCME is not likely among them. You really think they will pay Loeb to read all this? They pay 81K/year for a CFO for goodness sake.
CCME was a company that entrusted shareholder communications to Lena no matter how many complained, then engaged FH in what amounted to a short lived quasi-public stint. (That was probably more because third parties like Starr insisted on a higher end PR IMHO, not because Mr. Narcissism Cheng Zheng gave the tail of a rat about it). In fact a rat's tail would be too expensive for his stingy self. To be clear, CCME could care less what shareholders think, and even if they do care in some amorphous way, it ain't found on their hierarchy of needs except by coincidence-- they don't care what is written here, on YMB, on Seeking Alpha or anywhere else. That's the proof in this pudding.
For example, Zheng did not care very much at all what their former auditor was saying, even though they paid the auditor(s) over $500,000 for the 2009 signatures. Probably paid at least that much for 2010. If they do not care about what paid advisors write, why would they give the tail of a rat what anyone writes here?
They never even responded to more recent hit pieces by Muddy Waters, the nasty comments about CCME littered about the Internet, or even say anything to explain themselves other than the February 7 letter. Yeah, I know it's not in their best interest, but that's another story about how their interests and those of shareholders differ.
Don't get me wrong. Zheng made it this far and is therefore smart enough to know what shareholders would like to have happen, if he had to put his mind to that task. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know shareholders of a halted stock would like PR, a buyback, buyout, dividend, announce a new hire i.e. CFO, some favorable SEC filings, an update on its appeal process, bank balance verification initiative, publicity of the appeal documents (including exhibits), efforts to have a forensic audit, efforts to hire an auditor, or and an explanation, etc. He just does not care to do so at this time. His majesty is eating dinner; come back in six months...
So angry shareholders point fingers at longs who, albeit admirably hold out hope, as though such vocal benevolent shareholders are actually Zheng, or insiders of the company, or agents of the company. In the absence of access to the real thing, some look for a convenient pinada, someone to blame or point fingers at. Ooooh ooooh, he wrote something positive about CCME, he must be a company insider, he must be paid to work for CCME, it must be Zheng Cheng, I think it's Jacky... Come on. Why would CCME ever pay for a rumor-response initiative or even pay attention to longs at all? Also, there's no shame in being a long who actually believes in the company. I, myself, was once one who believed that a DTT audit was rock solid dependable, and I bought what CCME, Starr, Darren, Ping, SEC filings, and others were touting. Many did. That's why CCME was halted at 11.88, not 6 bucks or whatever it opens at (absent news). I still believe CCME has significant underlying business in some subsidiary(ies).
BTW, Zheng Cheng is not exactly a professor laureate of English expression. It's not terribly plausible he writes the elegant if not passable English in some of the posts.
Really, some people amaze me when they continually post that we should contact this particular CEO by e-mail or letters to ask him to take certain specified actions. Granted, that one letter by all the shareholders was a worthwhile mass effort with the very legitimate letterhead and purpose. (Thanks Tom, nice job, thanks to everyone who helped including that other lawyer besides Tom who wrote several portions too.). But to keep thinking that contacting the CEO will suddenly spur his interest in our needs any more so than he already has indicated is just plain silly.
Bottom line: Zheng Cheng does not even know iHub exists. He may know there's this concept of people posting online to a discussion forum, but it's highly unlikely that he busies himself reading these messages, much less himself caring enough to respond to messages using an alias or confederate.
The most I can see as plausible is that someone within the company could ask a lawyer or someone savvy i.e. a WCTBILLS kind of person to post a rumor or plausible explanation to get the idea out there (whatever the idea of the moment is). The person most likely to have done this is Jacky, who is long gone.
On the other hand, from time to time some post who may well be authors of various articles and publications that are not favorable to CCME long's prospects. This much is a near certainty.
-Andrew