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.
Blue3116:
No one here can contact the CEO; even if someone could, the CEO wont knowingly or substantively communicate with shareholders. See the response to the shareholder letter and the total behavior of CCME since Feb 7 for examples.
Maybe back when Jacky was CFO there were some who could reach him. The CEO even told WCTBILLS he should not be speaking with him.
Maybe your best bet is to show up at CCME headquarters or an event the CEO is attending.
Another way to reach the CEO is to file an individual lawsuit against him...
-Andrew
Nothing is lost in thinking about what's possible. I congratulate all who are discerning potential contingencies and a way this could work out favorably or less bad.
If a bona fide appeal is filed in good faith, then we'll have plenty of time to consider the facts and allegations in that light; if there's no appeal, we need to be prepared for CCME to open pink next week.
The healthy presumption is negative. Even if you think CCME has a largely legitimate business, the best bet is to assume there's no appeal until the facts show or strongly imply otherwise.
-Andrew
Post this on the CGS board.
CTXFD - 47% of sales from five sources, one of which is controlled by the executive.
It's not every day you see this in a filing for a company with over 9,565,032 (2010) ; 5,730,510 (2009) ; 2,856,769 (2008) net income:
"Our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures have been ineffective, and as a result we may be unable to accurately report our financial results, report our financial results in a timely manner or prevent fraud, and investor confidence and the market price of our ordinary shares may be adversely affected."
"Our reporting obligations as a public company place a significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources and systems. Based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2009, we had a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting relating to a failure of certain departments of the Company to communicate promptly and effectively with our management. We have made some improvements so far. We are a relatively young company with limited accounting personnel and other resources with which to address our internal controls and procedures. In addition, we must implement financial and disclosure control procedures and corporate governance practices that enable us to comply, on a stand-alone basis, with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, rules. For example, we will need to further develop accounting and financial capabilities, including the establishment of an audit committee and development of documentation related to internal control policies and procedures. While we have taken action, which we believe are adequate to remediate the material weaknesses in our internal controls, we may still be unable to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud and investor confidence and the market price of our ordinary shares may be adversely impacted."
Source: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001144204%2D11%2D020079%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C04%5C05%5C&CoName=CHINA+LINEN+TEXTILE+INDUSTRY%2C+LTD&FormType=20%2DF&RcvdDate=4%2F5%2F2011&pdf=
They can't find the extra million to hire five new accountants in house and half a million in systems to track information? GMAB
This is a big step froward from the flagrant fraud model of not admitting there's a problem or outright denying it.
-Andrew
CCCL - Why does James D. Dunning Jr. own one more share than Paul K. Kelly (663,693 vs. 663,692)?
Traderfan: Consider the below post on YMB not for its humor but related to symbol changes: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?bn=101061&tid=96766&mid=96766
"Was just wondering about something that's pretty important. Seeing as CCME is going to be dropped like a brick from NASDAQ listing that means CCME will be trading on the Pink Sheets.
The Pink Sheets already have a CAREERCOM CORP (CCME.PK). Does this mean China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (CCME.PK) will be impossible?
Would CCME goes to the Aqua Sheets?
Or do the two companies automatically merge when NASDAQ drops CCME as "China Media Express Careercom Holdings, Inc. (CCME.PK)"?
I know Pink will happen. Not even concerned about how NASDAQ will toss CCME to the wolves. Just want to know about the automatic merger aspect. Please only respond if you are an experienced investor.
Thank you in advance for your answer on this. Appreciate your valuable time."
(Originally posted from post 27282 on iHub)
-Andrew
FAQ seems to suggest CCME has a different Big 4 Auditor, but do not let that alone convince you of anything at all.
CCME recently removed reference to Deloitte from the FAQ (which is found in the previous post to which this replies).
"Q: Please tell us more about CCME
Our financial statements are audited by one of the Big Four accounting firms."
Source: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/faqs.php
This non-specific remaining claim sounds so general as to be worthy of doubt and suspicion. The FAQ said this above language from before Deloitte resigned. CCME could care less the words stating they had a Big 4 Accountant are still there, even if false. A study of the cached memory from Google show the prior statement:
"Q: Who is CCME's registered independent public accounting firm?
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Hong Kong audits our consolidated financial statements." along with the reference to a Big 4 Auditor.
-Andrew
Joe: When did you first conclude going pink was the CEO's plan? When did the CEO first conclude this was his plan (if you had to guess)
All things being the same, since you're guessing, on the 12th (assuming pink and trading does begin there), what's your guestimate that CCME opens at?
-Andrew
Here's one NEP delisting notice in an 8K. http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=7436954&SessionID=ICrHHegDKiQpV47
That's just a suspension. I can't speculate what they would have to do to undo the suspension. I'm sure they got a letter saying what they needed to do.
This was Friday probably to set up the Monday reference to it (suggests the SEC did something) by the rather ineffective SEC in a speech today.
Rato: Either China needs to adopt a law to protect foreign investors from major organized privity of contract securities fraud on their soil or, inevitably, without the chance to take these criminals to court of competent jurisdiction, mob "justice" will result.
Society is premised on the idea that a court system and laws are available to protect individuals. Here there may be none (unless auditors are well-financed and are shown reckless, knowing, or complicit).
In other words, somewhere along the line the white collar criminals who run these companies will hear from angered organized criminals (investors who double as racketeerers) who are disgruntled about their decline in "family" investment. Perhaps such a quid pro quo offer may resolve these organized criminal enterprises and perhaps these influences in the opposite direction also direct the frauds to begin with.
Someone asked on the CCME board, "Any chance another letter to the CEO would help?"
Well, there's only one kind of letter to this CEO [and perhaps to other similar fraudfeasing CEO's] that could possibly change their minds about defrauding investors, but such a letter would be more of a special message from a syndicate of mob bosses, not a passive "please do the right thing because we trusted you" letter from honest, law-abiding iHub retail shareholders.
(Disclaimer: Extortion is illegal and not ever advised; do not threaten the CEO or anyone related to the CEO; do not set the CEO up for arrest on unrelated charges in China such as narcotic trafficking or possession of contraband, etc.).
Additionally, the below noteworthy message by Joe referenced Block but could possibly capture some people's sentiments about Cheng Zheng-- including those who match certain geographic and "family business" stereotypes. It is tailored below to include Cheng's name instead.
"[Cheng Zheng] deserves nothing less than a firing squad if he were ever to be convicted of fraud in a Chinese court. Obviously in an American court, he'd be deserving of nothing less than 20 years behind bars. Bottom line is that he's a total P.O.S. and worthless to society. I really won't be surprised if some angry shareholder gets a hold of this guy at some point and beats him senseless with a Louisville Slugger."
Disclaimer: Obey the law. Violence is a bad idea. Violence without government sanction is not warranted. Self-help is never the answer.
American investors are left to their guile and otherwise depend on today's SEC China Stocks Czar.
The SEC needs to step up and intervene by requiring more protection and security from foreign operation securities (even though this may upset sophisticated investors that frequent the CGS board). You want your foreign security to trade here, you need to have an auditor from here, you need to agree your cash balances are verified weekly, you need to keep a percentage of the cash offshore, etc. My policy junkie days are long behind me, but I know this board has plenty to offer about how to fix the problem through a stricter more protective policy. One possibility is to look at the number of frauds over a period of time from a particular country to raise or lower other bars associated with that place. This is no different than saying some places are high crime areas or that beachfront property is loss-prone from hurricanes.
-Andrew
Unless you lost $100,000 or more, you need not make any major decision about offering to be lead plaintiff. If not, wait until lead plaintiff is named. Then contact the law firm and see if they can add you to their lists and such. Not much more to it.
Neither of us or any lawyer can select the firm for you. (except your personal lawyer which neither Tom nor I are).
Tom, please stop me if I'm saying anything unreasonable or short-sighted.
-Andrew
Sounds more like you are praying out loud... and polytheistic. ;)
The delegation from Texas (by way of NY just like those who settled Texas) respectfully redirects your attention to Arkansas, West Virginia, and them there tax and spend liberals up in New Yoak Citee and Wash'nten DC ... (as long as we're going for regionalism...)
Tell you what, I would not trust a Fujian company with HQ in NY or Texas if Zheng Cheng is the CEO. Would you?
;)
If it's an efficient get rich quick scheme, the insiders already sold and went short too.
To further answer your question, here is a recent example where the SEC suspended trading of a stock.
CHJI - CHINA CHANGJIANG MINING & NEW ENERGY CO., LTD.
Example of SEC direct suspension of a Nevada situs China stock http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64164-o.pdf
-Andrew
CHJI - CHINA CHANGJIANG MINING & NEW ENERGY CO., LTD.
Example of SEC direct suspension of a Nevada situs China stock http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64164-o.pdf
-Andrew
Perhaps the moral of the story is that the legitimate companies accessed private capital in China and the trash was offloaded to retail US investors. That would explain the high rate of fraud while still acknowledging many Chinese companies are legitimate (just not publicly traded on US markets).
-Andrew
The measure of how good the class counsel is and their attorney's fees should first and foremost be whether they prove DTT complicit, knowing, or reckless. I would not care if they got a Lodestar that translated to 2K/hour/ Partner working the case if they meet that burden.
-Andrew
Whether I'm responding to a turd or well intending poster, it's not a bad idea to remind people how we ended up believing this company. Absent that last Ping report, I'd have about 40% fewer shares. Absent Big 4 DTT's involvement, I'd have had 100% fewer shares.
-Andrew
Nick:
You need to ask the lawyers to be sure. It would seem though that you need to have a loss to be part of a class. To have that loss, sale for lower than you bought shares (during the class period) is typically how that's accomplished. Again, contact the lawyers on the case for more details.
-Andrew
Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer.
Rabitmania:
Not "everybody" told investors to avoid CCME. Did you read the last report from Ping Luo? Confirmed cash, contacted 30 advertisers including Coke. Did not DTT sign off in 2009? Even with all the shorting, shares were trading over 11 bucks because many with special access to information said positive things about CCME. That's more than I can say from mistranslation from Chinese third party websites in the hitpieces.
Yeah, it could be there never was business. If there never was any business, then there's a great opportunity available to fill the niche. I'm inclined to believe there's some business.
More likely there's plenty of business but the CEO bilked those accounts for his own benefit or he padded numbers too much to try to swindle earn-out shares.
As far as why retail investors got involved, direct your criticism to Global Hunter, Northland Securities, Starr, Greenberg, Deloitte (DTT), Jacky Lam, Zheng Cheng, Marco Kung, Dorothy Dong, Lin brothers, Wuyi Pharma, and others.
If Deloitte had not signed off in 2009, I'd never have been involved to begin with. I was looking for either an American CEO or a Big 4 auditor (among other things) for a Chinese small cap stock. That's why I avoided all the other names discussed on CGS. I counterbalanced AAPL and Oil/Energy stocks (which are not hurting at all) with what seemed a profitable Chinese company for diversification.
The comparisons to competitors made sense too, i.e. FMCN.
In fact Deloitte audited all major Chinese media companies.
Since you bring up the question of what was in the hitpieces, much of these trashy reports were fabrications and meant to explain why someone with inside information owned short term aggressive puts and made other unusual trades (allegedly in the absence of inside information). The fabrication in the hitpieces made the shorts lose credibility and persuasiveness.
At the end of the day, I take responsibility for my investments and blame no one but myself. If a court lets shareholders hold CCME or DTT accountable, then so be it.
-Andrew
you should have nevered bought $ccme,everybodywas telling you it was a fraud.
It's my only other Chinese stock. I have more invested in gas for my car this year than principal in CBBD at 4 cents. (Unlike CCME)
CBBD - NT 10-K late filing and resignation of Director Steve Oliveira.
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001140361%2D11%2D020037%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C04%5C01%5C&CoName=YOU+ON+DEMAND+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=NT+10%2DK&RcvdDate=4%2F1%2F2011&pdf=
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001140361%2D11%2D019935%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C04%5C01%5C&CoName=YOU+ON+DEMAND+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=4%2F1%2F2011&pdf=
YOU On Demand. Formerly China Broadband http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001140361%2D11%2D011944%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C02%5C24%5C&CoName=YOU+ON+DEMAND+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=2%2F24%2F2011&pdf=
CEO is American (Shane McMahon) as in WWE/WWF/Mom ran for CT Senate/Dad revolutionized sports entertainment.
-Andrew
No idea. We need more information.
The below noteworthy message by Joe referenced Block but could possibly capture some people's sentiments about Cheng Zheng. It is tailored below to include Cheng's name instead.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60650894
"[Cheng Zheng] deserves nothing less than a firing squad if he were ever to be convicted of fraud in a Chinese court. Obviously in an American court, he'd be deserving of nothing less than 20 years behind bars. Bottom line is that he's a total P.O.S. and worthless to society. I really won't be surprised if some angry shareholder gets a hold of this guy at some point and beats him senseless with a Louisville Slugger."
Disclaimer: Obey the law. Violence is a bad idea. Violence without government sanction is not warranted. Self-help is never the answer.
Florinda:
It looks like you may be confusing what NASDAQ does and what the SEC does.
The SEC is not listing or delisting CCME.
NASDAQ lists or delists CCME on the NASDAQ market.
(By analogy, I can make a reasoned decision to throw you out of my house. The US/State governments with a warrants, due process, so on can throw you out of all US houses and place you in limbo confinement i.e. Prison or jail awaiting a trial or sentence).
The SEC regulates securities to begin with. They could say this security (the legal instrument known as CCME shares) are too hot to handle so for the protection of the public, trading of this instrument is prohibited on all exchanges regulated by the SEC.
-Andrew
Many of us were expecting CCME to have a new set of bribed auditors, to then discount whatever the auditors said yet allowing CCME to possibly remain listed. The surprise today was seeing they did not even bribe some new auditors.
-Andrew
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
The SEC could prevent CCME from trading on NASDAQ, Pink, any US exchange. We have not seen evidence the SEC is lifting a finger. I might faint if they did. Still anything could happen between now and a reopening pink. Will Careercom cause CCME to list under a different symbol?
-Andrew
I detailed the chances of the appeal being filed at 8:30AM today here: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61673832
Even if the chances of winning are 50-50, the odds of the appeal are a lot less than 1%.
At just 1% success, combined odds of appeal and success on Friday are 1/200. As you can see, I measured the odds of filing at far less than 1% in the above referenced message.
How do we know there won't be an appeal? Because the company said it would appeal. Any time CCME says it will do something, that's how you know it wont happen, and if it does happen, the appeal will just be an exercise in bad faith, going through motions, but not honest, sincere, or persuasive.
-Andrew
There's only one kind of letter to this CEO that could possibly change his mind, but such a letter would be more of a special message from a syndicate of Mob Bosses, not a passive "please do the right thing because we trusted you" letter from honest, law-abiding iHub retail shareholders.
(Disclaimer: Extortion is illegal and not ever advised; do not threaten the CEO or anyone related to the CEO; do not set the CEO up for arrest on unrelated charges in China such as narcotic trafficking or possession of contraband, etc.).
-Andrew
Any chance another letter to the CEO would help?
Chris, you have that right. CCME will likely say they intend to re-apply. The statement of "I'll be back" is no more guarantee than the response by management since February 7. That's just more pudding in which we will find the truth.
-Andrew
Loeb and Loeb knows the rules and we have to assume they advised CCME of the deadlines and consequences. Whether CCME could care less is a different question.
-Andrew
Is that $7,000 invested today by the entire market or maybe $11,000 to make that spike from two cents to ten cents at 166,000 shares?
CCME - How can we possibly gauge price of CCME? One of the benefits of the halt was that somehow before it would be over there'd be some kind of additional information, attempted forensic audit, you know, something, at this point, anything... Instead we've had the opposite, like a vacuum of information as anyone associated with CCME walks away, sues, or disclaims. The lawsuits are new, but the claims are rehashed allegations. Even Starr did not name any allegations of new specifics. So, again, how does the market measure what CCME would reopen at?
CCME - Why halt to begin with? (knowing what we know now)
This is from the company that hatched a plan to mislead the Ping, Darren, DTT, CALPERS, Vanguard, Starr, Greenberg, NASDAQ, you, me, everyone here, probably their own lawyers, Frank Purdue, and the Dalai Lama if they could come up with a way to mislead him too. And now you are asking if they intend to appeal because they said so?
The proof is in the pudding.
-Andrew
Adds to speculation that the CEO sold shares at the high and went short too.