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.
wait?! Live long and prosper. Isn't that Spock from star trek?
Oh well, may the force be with you. I wonder:
Are APWR 2010 financials being held by CSRC/SEC? Do they need to be redone because of auditor suspension or sanctions? 2010 was before the arbitration fall out wasn't it? I don't think the arbitration ruling transfers any ownership of shares in APWR does it? I think it was something called a Mareva injuction:
'The granting of a Mareva injunction does not give the plaintiff property, nor does it give the plaintiff a lien on the defendant's property. It gives no priority to the potential creditor over other claimants before or after judgment, nor does it affect the laws relating to insolvency. The defendant is restrained from disposing of his assets in the sense that to do so will constitute contempt of court, but the injunction does not affect the defendant's power to dispose of his assets'
Don't these kinds of rulings allow years for the amounts to be appealed and/or payed? Just thinking out loud.
Judgement:
13. Having read the statement of claim, I was satisfied that as pleaded, the plaintiff has made out a case that Head Dragon and ANE had full notice and knowledge of A-Power’s indebtedness to the plaintiff, that when they entered into the Agreement they knew that A-Power was insolvent and that the Liaoning shares held via Head Dragon were A-Power’s only appreciable assets. The Agreement, made at a significant undervalue, was a disposition of property made with intent to defraud. Pursuant to section 60 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap 219, it is voidable at the instance of the plaintiff who is the party prejudiced.
14. Accordingly, I ordered that the Agreement be set aside on that basis with the following consequential relief:
i. An order compelling ANE to disclose to the plaintiff by affirmation, within 14 days from the date of judgment, whether it is still the legal and/or beneficial owner of the shares in Liaoning or any part thereof, and if the latter, to identify which part thereof.
ii. If ANE is still the legal and/or beneficial owner of the shares in Liaoning or any part thereof, an order compelling ANE to take all necessary and reasonable steps to reinstate and/or restore Head Dragon as the legal and beneficial owner of the said shares.
iii. If ANE had transferred the shares in Liaoning or any part thereof, an order compelling ANE to disclose to the plaintiff by affirmation, within 14 days from the date of judgment, the details of such transfer(s), to whom such transfer(s) were made and the consideration for which such transfer(s) were made, and disclose to the plaintiff all relevant documents pertaining to end evidencing such transfer(s).
iv. The plaintiff be at liberty to apply to the court for further and consequential directions to enable it to be informed of the present ownership, whereabouts and status of the shares in Liaoning and to enable steps to be taken to reinstate Head Dragon as the legal and beneficial owner of the said shares.
15. The plaintiff also sought damages against Head Dragon and ANE for inducing A-Power to breach its obligations under the guarantee. I was satisfied that both Head Dragon and ANE had the requisite knowledge and also the intention to procure the breach. The whole point of the Agreement was to create this situation whereby A-Power would not be able to have recourse to the Liaoning shares to discharge its indebtedness to the plaintiff under the guarantee. Accordingly, I also ordered that damages be assessed by a master.
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Deputy High Court Judge
Miss Kareena Teh (solicitor advocate), instructed by Dechert, for the plaintiff
The 2nd defendant, was not represented and did not appear
The 3rd defendant, was not represented and did not appear
Translation for HCA1720/2013 available.
Here is part of it: not good.
12. Reduced to its bare bones, the plaintiff’s case as pleaded in its statement of claim may be summarised as follows:
1) The plaintiff is the assignee of the rights of the vendor under a purchase agreement dated 3 March 2009 and has since 27 May 2010 been entitled to the benefit of a guarantee executed by A-Power guaranteeing the purchaser’s obligations under the purchase agreement. A-Power’s most valuable asset consisted of the Liaoning shares held indirectly via its wholly-owned subsidiary Head Dragon.
2) Defaults began occurring in June 2010 and a first demand payment under the guarantee for US$9 million was served on A-Power in September 2010 and a notice of arbitration was issued against A-Power in June 2011.
3) On 16 April 2012, the arbitral tribunal made an Interim Order restraining A-Power from disposing of or in any way dealing with any of its assets up to a value of US$323 million and specifically required A-Power to ensure that its subsidiaries including Head Dragon not remove, encumber, dissipate etc assets up to that value.
4) The interim order was served on, inter alia, A-Power, Lu and Head Dragon on 17 April 2012 who therefore had knowledge of the same and, on the same day, A-Power made a sworn statement valuing its assets at US$194,661,568.54 (approximately HK$1.5 billion).
5) On 24 April 2012 the High Court made an order rendering the interim order enforceable as an order of the court.
6) Less than 10 days later, Head Dragon (acting by Lu) and ANE (acting by Zhang) entered into the Agreement whereby Head Dragon’s 100% shareholding in Liaoning was transferred to ANE for RMB54 million to be payable on or before 15 May 2012.
7) It is the plaintiff’s case that the whole purpose of the agreement was to render A-Power judgment proof. A-Power was insolvent at the date of the Agreement because immediately prior to the Agreement, it was indebted to the plaintiff under the guarantee for a sum in excess of US$328 million but it was worth no more than US$194 million.
8) The tribunal rendered its Final Award on 8 August 2012 awarding the plaintiff in excess of US$361 million.
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=91631&currpage=T
Ge was to make the gearboxes.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17459
GE Drivetrain Technologies, a unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), and A-Power Energy Generation Systems (Nasdaq: APWR) have signed two Letters of Intent (LOI), one for GE Drivetrain Technologies to supply A-Power with 2.7-megawatt (MW) wind turbine gearboxes and a second to establish a joint venture partnership for a wind turbine gearbox assembly plant.
Under the supply agreement, GE Drivetrain Technologies will supply A-Power with more than 900 2.7-MW gearboxes beginning in 2010.
The companies' joint venture agreement creates a wind turbine gearbox assembly business that will be majority owned by GE Drivetrain Technologies and operate under the name GE Transportation. The new assembly plant will bring multi-megawatt gearbox capacity to China and serve as GE Drivetrain Technologies' Southeast Asia manufacturing center from which it will serve its customers in the region beginning in mid-2010.
"We're excited about the opportunity to serve A-Power" said Prescott Logan, Business Leader GE Drivetrain Technologies. "The speed and focus that A-Power has brought to building its wind turbine business, combined with the highly reliable design of its Fuhrlander 2.7 MW turbine, position A-Power well for long-term success in China and the broader global market."
China announced in August 2008 that it would subsidize wind turbine production in an effort to reah a target of increasing wind energy output from one gigawatt in 2005 to 30 gigawatts by 2020.
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd., through its PRC operating subsidiary, Liaoning GaoKe Energy Group Co., Ltd., is the largest provider of distributed power generation systems in China and entered into China's wind energy market in 2008 with the construction of its first wind turbine plant.
Would it be a horror or a comedy lol.
gig: It must be about more than the 900 gearboxes, which is way more than even spinning star would need. Those 40 turbine determinations set to expire 2/7/14 are gone btw. I don't think it would be a case of coming up with the money to pay GE for those gearboxes all at once anyway, even if it were possible. Not to just sell them at a loss. Where would they put them? meanwhile if GE did in fact make them which I doubt. This was probably more about the joint ownership of the gearbox manufacturing facility which maybe didn't pan out in GE's expected timeframe so they wanted a refund maybe. strange days indeed.
Didn't know they paid taxes. I wonder how they stay profitable with so many large losses requiring tax write offs. quid pro quo?
Ha Ha. I knew what it was as soon as i saw your post.
Very confusing. They keep referring to GE as a creditor. Did GE at some point invest so much money in the company which the company is now trying to evade paying? Was GE at some point planning on buying A-power or taking it over. Which may mean that the plan was to eliminate them one way or another as a competitor. Ok, ok maybe a bit paranoid. Its nice to have more information, but we still need more of the details. Mainly, how did they arrive at the 361 million usd number? What did GE in fact give up worth 361 million, and what did A-problems get?
On another note: Wasn't baoding huide doing the blades at one point? Or were they assembling? been so long that i've forgotten a lot about the details. Anyway, I guess its a plus that they are still trying to be a wind turbine manufacturer based on the job postings. Nothing new on the 40 turbines with expired determinations as of 2/7/14. Keep up the good work.
I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that:
At GE's growth rate, they would never ever be able to pay off their debt. Hows that for a short author's blog title. good work chitowncub.
Agree with your implications.
this thing seems to be bigger than just A-power and GE. Maybe even bigger than just some random short sellers. I don't want to say more because I don't want my computer to lock up. One thing concerns me though. If I get an order to make and sell something, even if it is somehow valued at over 300 million, I still have that thing to sell, or use as an asset. Why is there not more explanation as to how 300 or so million was arrived at? Seems like the spin is always towards shareholders being suckers, US regulators working for investors' protection, and all Chinese companies being frauds though there are rarely any clear evidences. I can't quite put my finger on what is going on in the big picture but there seems to be something like new world order financial warfare. I only base this on my experience walking the earth for so long. Remember sen. Schumer and other red blooded americans' objections to a wind farm on US soil supplied with Chinese turbines? Did you not get the feeling that some would do anything above and below board to fight it? Not saying that it is all one sided. There are things going on on both sides. But as usual, the little people are not considered, and certainly not protected. All this, to me, makes for one heck of a media story, even for its 60 minutes like entertainment value. But for the most part, it is not in the media. The only mentions of the whole thing always imply that there is rampant fraud by the companies with very little proof other than longtop and sino forest and a few others out of 100's. Remember how the shorts almost brought down US banks in 07 and 08? Were they frauds? I bet if mud were thrown at over a hundred US companies, more enrons and worldcoms and arthur andersens would fall out. Oh well, since before railroad frauds and bucket shops (remember the Sting?) and tulip bubbles, its always something. Never seen the little guy come out on top though. enough said. enjoy.
thought I read somewhere that the administrator does not have to pay interest. Probably why it is taking so long IMO.
reply to any thoughts understanding.
How much is 90 million yuan? Is it about 13-14 million US?
Sounds like there are a lot of problems trying to produce any turbines. Maybe AVIC wanted money from Hi Tech for the order stating that Hi Tech guaranteed the order. Then Hi Tech said there was a breach of contract for failure to fulfill, so the guarantee doesn't apply. And, anyway maybe they are saying that AVIC's beef should be with ruixiang in the first place, not Hi Tech. maybe the claim was dismissed and recommended to arbitration? Just guessing of course. They mention that the guarantee was conditional. naturally. But the whole thing seems to have been ongoing since 2010. maybe it will be worked out. maybe AVIC was incompetent. Or maybe Hi Tech didn't follow through, and its the same as with GE transport. still, disputes are not good. Can't we all just get along? lol.
one more thing regarding my previous posts about the website reappearance and the other US listed company whose work papers were recently released and who last month released 2011 financials. That other US listed company also has a website that doesn't seem to have been updated in years. And the whole time I was thinking that the spinning star deal was a very good reason to come back to a US listing for APWR, but with so many court problems producing the turbines and gearboxes and such. I wonder whether the problems are manufacturing related and/or accounting related or both or what. Well, at least there is periodic activity to have something to post about on this board. Lets hope that soon there is something positive materially to post about.
ihub keeps messing up my postings. will go and check to see whether the 40 turbines set to expire on friday (2/7) were extended.
Meet the new site. Same as the old site.
website is back. registration extended 1 year to 1/29/15.
And the saga continues. So tired of this, but there are still
many things that say this is not over. Here is one example. I am in no way trying to pump another hell hole, but just listen to the example. One of the companies whose work papers were being held by one of the big four acctg companies charged by the SEC just released the 2011 financials last month. They were clearly identified as company D in the SEC charges. they haven't released 2010 yet because of auditor issues (auditor suspended and I think audit has to be redone) I could go on, but this is not about THAT company. I mention it to show that the situation is still very complicated and could still be in flux for A-poorer.
Hey, at least the ponied up another year for the same ol site. lol.
Website registration ends tomorrow.
It ends for the apwr site on 1/29. Just sayin'.
wonder what they will do.
Website registration ends tomorrow.
It ends for the apwr site on 1/29. Just sayin'.
wonder what they will do.
Interesting article about shorts:
'Then in December 2013, the lid to Lawrence’s “spin machine” blew off: Lawrence’s golden boy Carnes was charged by the U.S. and Canadian law enforcement with orchestrating massive frauds on investors.
On Dec. 19, 2013, the well-regarded British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) accused Carnes of having committed extensive securities frauds. Both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FBI assisted the Canadian law enforcement in nailing him to the ground. In a press release, the BCSC stated that Carnes had “forged extensive documents, faked identities, orchestrated ‘short and distort’ schemes that defrauded investors out of billions of dollars.”'
'Even the powerful Nasdaq Stock Market was duped into delisting Chinese companies left and right, solely based on allegations from fraudsters like Carnes. Racist senior Nasdaq official Michael Emen went so far as to admit that Nasdaq Is an Institutional Racist'
http://theblot.com/racist-bloomberg-reporter-dune-lawrence-duped-stock-swindler-jon-carnes-7713330
Some FAA news for the 99 turbines determination.
The 99 Midland turbines from 2012 wtw 4451-4549 that were due to
expire on 1/13/14 were extended to 7/9/15. Supplemental note says construction has not started due to the delayed financing. I surmise that the go ahead on financing will not be given until the exclusive turbine supplier's status is stable. After that, the financing shouldn't be that difficult since it would probably be secured by a lien on the assets and income string from the ppa's. And maybe land. But anyhoo, small news is better than no news. And this news of another extension with supplemental explanation is at least more positive than negative. Have a good weekend. You still here E?
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=165783739
Thanks for the photos. Have seen that APWR photo a few times on this board, but nice to see it with other photos. Mainly, I noticed that there are not many people in several of the photos. Maybe we got the impression that APWR was empty because it looked empty from our perspectives. But I think there is a disconnect when we compare China photos to some other photos. I mean, we think of China as crowded because of its large population, but we know there is also a lot of capacity. Like real estate over-building, and large roads that aren't filled with cars because the people haven't caught up yet maybe as far as material stuff goes. Did anyone see the size of some of those interections? They had just a few cars at the light on one side, and then on the other side, there were maybe one or two lone cyclists setting off to cross the HUGE looking intersection. I know I don't have words to make a point quickly. Twain compared the difference between a word and the right word like the difference between thunder and lightening, or some quote like that. (look it up for exact quote). But I'm just trying to make an argument that maybe the APWR site isn't closed for business anymore than those huge almost empty intersections are closed. We just need to suspend what we "know" and expect to see from photos of the west, and even other crowded developing countries when looking at China. I could be talking a bunch of bs. I have seen the 60 minutes stories about vast empty developments,but though China has a large population, they seem to have a lot of space also. Who knows. I like to look through photos though. thanks
Whatever it is, I bet its political at the core. Don't forget
to include the SEC. Checkout their ruling on China cablecom in the what's new section on their website. Cablecom is another example of a company that caught up with its filings but SEC is revoking anyway. THEY ARE MAKING THE RULES UP AS THEY GO. Just read through the explanations for the ruling. I mean what is the reason for some companies being yanked into administrative proceedings for not filing "timely" financials while other companies go on and on. If ALL companies will be revoked anyway, even if they catch up, I mean why even spend so much time and effort with proceedings?? Bottom line. I think the whole US listed thing was political to begin with, and the proof is in the selective targeting companies, and the flimsy precedents referred to justifying the final decisions. This US listed thing covers PCAOB, and its attempts to make rules to catch up with the reality, CSRC, SEC, the audit firms, the companies, US China delegations travelling back and forth. And, you mean to tell me it all funnels down to SEC decisions which don't take any of that into account, referring to precedents that don't take any of that into account? Why not just make the rulings for these cases "because I said so"? What about the companies whose working papers were requested by SEC and tied up in this mess. Do they get a pass? Or are they going to be revoked also, just because? WHAT A BUNCH Of BS.
Well GIG, I guess our best chance for info may be the return
of the websites. The A-Power website's registration expires on 1/29/14. Always one more hill to climb, or river to cross, or whatever. Wonder if that 361 mill will eventually have a payment schedule, or be resolved somehow by APWR taking the gearboxes,
which are still assets. So its not like negligence or something where a payment is just required. It comes down to who gets stuck with the gearboxes right? I guess we just need more info. But fun to have something to speculate on. huh?
Hmmm, seems like more orchestrated bs to me, but we need more details. I seem to remember the amount being like 900 million from some news blurb, or a post on this board. And, I thought they were going to be co owners of a factory in Shenyang for the gearboxes. But, maybe there was an order from APWR to GE for some gearboxes, I think. Maybe GE made them, and APWR didn't purchase them? Or since the amount is now 361 mill, maybe they didn't purchase all of them? We just don't have enough facts. How did Hong Kong come into play? APWR not responding to inquiries, and Lu possibly trying to get around the suit by selling assets are not good things for shareholders IMO, but we shall see. Well it is good to get a hold of new info. I had been wanting more details on this arbitration stuff for a while now. But, yeah Dingo, wtf knows.
Note: Simon & Edward has removed those test messages I mentioned in my previous message, sooo, there's that. I know S&E, as far as we know, is no longer related to APWR, but if there are workpaper issues, it would probably be from the 2010 audit S&E did. I guess, though its unsaid, we are all wondering whether 2010 was completed by S&E.
Darn. Old news. Guess I'm waiting for the websites to pop back up all updated and stuff. Simon & Edward's same old website has been back since October. The only thing new on it has been a few test messages on it. But its the same old website. It was gone two years or so. Feels like S&E was disciplined or something.
Can't help but notice a slowdown in SEC administrative activity lately. Maybe its related to workpapers now possibly flowing through CSRC to PCAOB and SEC. And the slow walking of SEC's case against big four auditors. Though smaller audit firms aren't named, they are probably caught in the same net so to speak. Anyone observing this mess for the last two years can't help but notice the selective handling of cases against firms. Some firms get deregistered post haste for not filing "timely"
financials, while others go on and on and on everyday up til now in sort of a limbo that probably can't go on indefinitely. So it must all be tied up together. And things must be happening behind the scenes slooowly I guess. But, yeah it is disconcerting not to be able to find any news on a company. I guess someone in media who knows how news gets onto the internet would have some idea how that works. The fact that we are talking about a Chinese company probably makes a difference. Maybe there's lots of news in Chinese. Oh well. Happy New Year
anybody know anything about this
oled curved tv technology and evatech?
OLED investments in China
Company Note
Beijing Visionox Technology Already started test production
TCL To invest 100 million yuan
BOE Technology
Truly Semiconductor of Shanwei Uses technology acquired from Japan's
Evatech and South Korea's Viatron, and has already started test production
http://www.digitimes...40812A5020.html
I'm trying to figure out if this is recent news about Japan Evatech China. Just doing a little research out of curiosity.
Can't find FAA forms on:
2012 4451-4549 in Midland. These 99 turbines were due to expire
1/13/2014. Now only the short version of form 7460-1 is there. There should be a determination.
Now gaoke and a-power sites are down.
I can't tell what the messages say.
http://www.lngkny.com/index.asp
http://www.apowerenergy.com/en
As the Hub Turns ??
Days of our losses??
Spinning Star Energy website is back.
Yeah Gig,
'The standoff resulted from U.S. regulators' efforts to probe a wave of accounting and disclosure problems at more than 100 U.S.-traded Chinese companies that surfaced starting in 2011. U.S. investors lost billions of dollars when the companies' stocks plunged once the problems were disclosed. The SEC has filed more than a dozen lawsuits against some of these Chinese companies and their executives and has won settlements in some cases.'
This seems to be the most telling paragraph. Over 100 Chinese companies accused of the same things and still very few smoking guns?? We know an informal investigation was opened against APWR with no known results except maybe the favorable decision by NASDAQ, if its related. I'm pretty sure APWR's work papers got tied up in this mess.
2 more things about SSE.
expiration of website registration is April 2014.
it has been down since Friday Nov. 22 - or whatever that
Friday's date was. Also, I called the number recently (early last week, or week before last) and it was disconnected.
The office manager moved on to other employment months ago -
even before Shweta started listing her other gig.
The website has been down before though. Back on Aug. 27, 2013.
Maybe they just overlooked the phone and website bills?
I still don't understand why some companies get hounded and hounded until shares are revoked, while other companies go on and on after the 25-nse. That selective enforcement of laws just doesn't make sense. However, if APwr were allowed to finish 2010 audit and relist with some explanations involving extra time due to audit scope, class action issues, and work paper issues with CSRC and SEC, maybe we would get some reasons from the regulators for the selective handling of the US listed Chines company fiasco.
Though, I doubt we will ever get any reasonable explanations from
SEC. The fact that no spotlight has ever been put on the blogs from admitted short sellers accusing so so many companies of the same things with so few actual proven evidences. The wrist slaps to shorts with illegal positions (see optionsxpress docs with SEC). The wrist slaps to accounting firms. The reference in docs to 3rd party undisclosed info by SEC (see chbt docs, I think). So many lawsuits for so little money. These sorts of things make me continue to believe this was completely orchestrated from behind the scenes. And not for the so called protection of long investors who seem to have gotten the worst of it on all levels. Oh well, someone could probably write a book on it all. There are so many details. I just got carried away here trying to listed some of the reasons behind my thoughts on the sit. oh don't let me forget to mention the trolls. whats the reason for their ever present suspicious existence? enough rambling.
How come
the SEC has done nothing to companies like ABAT for example for failing to file periodic and timely financials. I think one of CHBT's arguments for getting their shares re registered was the inconsistent actions of the SEC, and no clear definition of timely. Just saying. Not trying to wish ABAT ill, but just trying to make sense of the selective actions of the SEC. And, also just wondering why the SEC accepted all of CHBT filings to bring them current, then revoked registration???? Note: in the SEC documentation, 3rd party information is factored into the SEC decisions, but the SEC refused to disclose the identity, and probably ways the info was obtained when CHBT by right requested disclosure. Strange. Just trying to wrap my head around the whole multi year multi company multi rule US China US listed company saga.
looking for more on:
Austin "Spinning Star Energy" Search. Search. ... 2013-06-26, Jurisdiction: Travis County Plaintiff: DWF III Prominent Pointe LP, Defendant: Spinning Star ...
Found in Austin Business Journal. May not be much. I think prominent pointe may be a florist? or real estate company?
Dwf III Prominent Pointe, LLC filed as a Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the State of Texas on Thursday, January 19, 2012 and is approximately one year old, as recorded in documents filed with Texas Secretary of State. The filing is currently active as of the last data refresh which occured on Thursday, November 07, 2013. A corporate filing is called a foreign filing when an existing corporate entity files in a state other than the state they originally filed in. This does not necessarily mean that they are from outside the United States.
Yeah I saw that yesterday. Wouldn't be surprised if they got it from the gaoke website photo news. Just more bs. How old is this news? Why bring it up now? What's that saying? Something like there's no such thing as bad publicity? anyway, you never know what will cause things to heat up.
FYI: The hawaiian shirt is gone.
The Simon & Edward website is gone. Of course, the clowns will say this has nothing to do with the problems of a-power. But, there has to be some reason the page disappeared for so long. They are not the apwr auditor now, but maybe the disappearance long ago WAS connected in some way to the whole China US listed kerfuffle. Maybe they were sanctioned, and that has ended......
Just speculation at this point.
Note: also extended in McCamey, TX
the 117 turbines 2010-wtw-14605-oe thru 2010-wtw-14776-oe
extended to 3/18/14. including 2011 wtw 9888 oe steel tower extended to 10/10/14. so, the 99 midland turbines- 2012 4451 thru 4549 still unchanged as of today to expire 1/13/14. and the 40 midland turbines 4610 thru 4649 unchanged as of today at 2/7/14 expiration. by the way, 2012-wtw-403-oe terminated.
In initial SEC decision dated Nov. 2, 2012
'A-Power argues that its failure to file the report was caused by various unexpected matters and an unfavorable environment and that it is trying to complete its annual report for 2010. It requests another twelve months to accomplish this and states that suspension, rather than revocation, would be a sufficient sanction for its violation and would strengthen confidence of investors in the company'
Audits can and do take a long time sometimes. The one year date is coming up.
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2012/id470cff.pdf
'Further, at any time following the revocation, A-Power may re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g) by filing a Form 20-F with the Commission, using the audited financial statements that it intends to prepare.'
One more thing. what is this share-holding company? see details under jiangsu miracle page 16. I really don't remember seeing these sorts of details. They would go a long way in explaining the so called cash being moved around possibly. Also, somewhere in the photos, they mentioned why the share in SPG changed. I had been wondering about that too. yeah, just found it. pg 14. LNEIO? (running out of time to edit hahah) 'In addition, they will co-plan for the concept of going public and arrange for project performance together.'??
I started not to post this but...
I was looking through the photo news on the Hi Tech website,
and, it looks like there is new information there though the dates are not that new. I don't recall seeing certain political figures, statements by the company, other company relationships mentioned, other banks mentioned, and more stuff in the pictures.
Maybe it was always there, and I overlooked it. one thing. On page 10 there is a statement entitled A Power holds a good vision for new energy sector. I don't remember that statement. Maybe I just overlooked all these photos, but I think I would have looked up the banks mentioned, and the companies I hadn't seen before. Oh, well.
Any idea what happened in British Virgin Islands
with A-Power and GE transportation?