this is partly answering modes948 but really thanking downthehatch

modes948 asked if something could change, and I think downthehatch answered better than I am able to speculate. see post# 161962. pretty certain seeming that this settlement succeeds, right?

one thing that NordStorm has not emphasized that I think noteworthy is that the plaintiffs in the proposed settlement get their designated board member CANDIDATES for service of ONLY TWO YEARS. also, the NOTICE of settlement did NOT come with a contact for defendant SIAF from the attorney defending the litigation but instead the contact in the press release is from the attorneys who handle the SEC reporting for SIAF. Finally, what I suspect is a big deal is the representation from the attorneys that TriWay is a "subsidiary" of SIAF. Am I right that these are noteworthy representations? Anyone?


the press release coordinated by the attorneys for both SIAF as defendant and the plaintiffs reads as follows:


HONG KONG, July 31, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Sino Agro Foods Inc. (OTCMKTS: SIAF), an agricultural holding company, today announced that on June 27, 2020, SIAF entered into a proposed settlement agreement (the "Proposed Settlement Agreement") in the shareholder derivative action previously disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Stipulation of Settlement calls for SIAF to adopt certain governance changes, independent shareholder representation on its board, cessation of the use of company shares to collateralize loans, and for SIAF's chairman to transfer certain personally held shares of Tri-way, a SIAF subsidiary, to the plaintiff-shareholders who shall supply independent director candidates to the boards of SIAF and Tri-way. These directors shall serve for 2 years. SIAF itself will not be required to make payment of any kind.

On July 23, 2020, the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York entered an Order Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and the Notice of Proposed Settlement in Heng Ren Silk Road Investments LLC, Heng Ren Investments LP, derivatively on behalf of Sino Agro Food Inc. v. Sino Agro Food Inc., Lee Yip Kun Solomon, Tan Poay Teik, Chen Bor Hann, Lim Chang Soh, and Sino Agro Food Inc. (Case No.: 1:19-cv-02680). A final settlement hearing is scheduled forOctober 13, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Court Room 1105, New York, NY 10007.

The full Proposed Settlement Agreement and the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action have been filed with the SEC in an Form 8-K filing dated July 30, 2020, available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1488419/000110465920088457/0001104659-20-088457-index.htm. Copies of the notice and proposed settlement are also available on SIAF's website at: http://sinoagrofood.investorroom.com/news-releases?item=258

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/afn-law-pllc-sino-agro-foods-inc-announces-proposed-settlement-of-derivitive-litigation-301104134.html

SOURCE AFN Law PLLC

/CONTACT: Counsel for Defendants: Richard J. Babnick , Jr., Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP, 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10036 (212) 930-9700, Email: rbabnick@srff.com; Counsel for Plaintiffs: Angus F. Ni at AFN Law PLLC, 387 Park Ave S, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (646) 453-7294, angus@afnlegal.com

NordStorn, you are right that nobody challenged jurisdiction for the underlying lawsuit, but, did that lawsuit include all parties to the settlement? I don't think so, and, I cannot figure out how the court accepts jurisdiction over nonparties in any possible way.

Did the settlement agreement or the underlying litigation have judicial notice taken that SIAF was not properly compensated for transfer of assets and providing of services to TriWay? That might be a theory to clawback assets or claim jurisdiction, but, it was not presented to this court.

Moreover, how can a contract by the corporation possibly go against established requirements for business decisions by members of a board of directors? Is the settlement, for that reason, limited to making future efforts, that is the operative word, right, efforts, towards TriWay rather than including TriWay as a party to the settlement? Moreover, the settlement may be including merely one director of TriWay who may be unable, legally, to enter into even an advisory agreement as to conduct within the board of directors of TriWay, right?

I think the settlement is an attempt to sneak in what was not contemplated in the underlying litigation; moreover, I am suspicious that the underlying litigation was flawed in two ways; obviously, in hindsight, that it may not have established the jurisdiction for the parties nor for the actions contemplated in the settlement. But, also, what was the scope of the derivative action on behalf of all shareholders of SIAF and could it possibly be stretched to cover having a SIAF director pay from personal assets for future services of a representative of the plaintiffs?

If the settlement is requiring future efforts towards TriWay, is it then merely an agreement to agree in the future and for that reason unenforceable? If the settlement is attempting to limit the dilution of shareholders in advance of such action, is that asking this court for some kind of injunction to be issued, which is not the relief available from this court under the pleadings for which jurisdiction went unchallenged? This court already required newly issuing notice that was later given as required, but, does that notice contemplate the scope of the relief being sought?

How does this court take jurisdiction for issuing securities as part of any settlement? I cannot figure out how that can happen.

How does this court take jurisdiction to circumvent having directors nominated to and voted in by shareholders at a properly noticed meeting of shareholders? Again, I cannot figure that out.

I do not believe the settlement is possible as structured. Notwithstanding that you respect the experience and capabilities of the plaintiffs in this mess, I think they and their attorneys are moving from one bungled effort to others bungled even worse

sorry to muddy up the debate between NordStorm and RealDutch, but, I have never understood

-- how this judge will agree to jurisdiction over Solomon's "A" shares,
-- nor how the judge will agree to jurisdiction over the transfer of Tri-Way shares from Solomon's personal accounts as payment for theoretical benefits from service on the board of directors of SIAF to the plaintiff for selecting such candidates,
-- nor how the judge will agree to jurisdiction over "advisory" maneuvering affecting control of electing a member to the board of directors of SIAF itself let alone the more difficult to defend over-reaching to the board of directors of Tri-Way, and related thereto, implementation of a veto power contrary to the established rules for business decision making by members of the board of directors,
-- nor what the judge will do about having learned the plaintiffs as well as a defendant attempted to conceal material facts about their settlement.

Those are really difficult issues to be resolved for the settlement to unfold as NordStorm is confident we will see happen. I have no confidence it can happen that way even though I am grateful for the efforts to find and explain information that NordStorm has done for the benefit of us all.

Unlike SIAF, Tri-Way is not publicly traded nor is it under the jurisdiction of this or any American court or regulatory agency. A dividend of shares in Tri-Way to shareholders of SIAF would instantly make it so, triggering burdens for compliance that Tri-Way was unable to complete in a prior disastrous attempt.

So long as ZeroHedge is wrong about only pond scum being produced that doesn't even have any ownership by SIAF or TriWay, in other words, so long as fish are successfully being raised and sold to customers, there is an income stream to fund a resolution and bring value to shareholders. It is an oversimplification to think it is easily structured.

The better tactic in front of us seems, in my humble thoughts, to be nominating and electing directly to the board of directors of SIAF in the normal course of business rather than relying on the possible outcome of the litigation thus far. I would gladly, towards that end, want both NordStorm and RealDutch to be added to (or replace members if not fill vacancies on) the board of directors. When is the annual meeting and related thereto, when is the deadline to nominate candidates to the BoD, and, for the record here and now, will you guys accept if nominated?

reply to T_Minus31 that this link here http://synbioconference.org/2020 says that the conference is cancelled but I think that is maybe in error as there is an agenda for November still up and looking okay at this link here https://www.synbiomarkets.com/agenda-2020/

not all links are working but the one to KBLB speaker, KT, is here at this link https://www.synbiomarkets.com/speaker/kim-k-thompson/

might be a worthwhile conference to get some publicity on sustainability and other facets of kblb so an early November public relations campaign looks to be scheduled. this is a global conference, so likely a good fit with interest from a like minded community.

so much bitterness that maybe this is useless to suggest. we know that the settlement anticipates changes in the board of directors as well as governance of SIAF. We do not know when the shareholders will meet to vote on candidates for election to the board of directors. is everyone too bitter for RealDutch to be nominated? we do all benefit from the explanations and information provided from RealDutch and we do all know that RealDutch will fight for shareholder values.

he can attend by internet until travel restrictions are reduced; he can have better access to Peter as well as auditors

why is that delayed operations update still a no show? it is unsettling that there is nothing beyond the steps of the settlement that has been presented; not sure whether more is under negotiations or just unrolling as others here have expected.

two really positive news items came out. one is that China has dramatically stepped up reliance on internal subsidies for food production in place of imports. however, cuts both ways. against? could be targeting that trading division. tailwind for SIAF and Tri-Way is domestic production incentivized.

other good and surprising news item was Hong Kong securities IPOs are super booming right now

thanks, newjerichoman, for posting interesting screen shot about bids and asks. fascinating that someone is bidding for so many shares when there is unlikely to be that available at those strike prices. I have to wonder if my open sell order will get filled before it expires? anyone know, does the flooding in China endanger any of the SIAF/Tri-Way sites? may we continue living in such interesting times.

interesting coincidence that strike price of twentythree cents reported by Martin79x, as that is my initial entry price paid back in November of 2018. I wondered if I was trying to catch a falling knife back then, but, kept adding in smaller increments thereafter. What I added since, with some anxiety, is looking green already. I have an open order to exit the entirety of my still tiny position of 8500 at ninetyeight cents so plenty of supply if someone goes to what, according to some recent posters, is still going to be their bargain acquisition?

I really do hope the buyer, if there is one, of my position in SIAF makes a ton of profits thereafter!

my reasons for not staying longer (or hopefully higher)?
- not convinced the settlement will happen as beneficial as others are hoping

- fearful that the group settling the litigation is looting whenever they can

- worried about China letting dividends leave the country

- worried about the listing for trading of TRW, given risks in Hong Kong, etc

I have a lot of exposure to any future risks or upside in China with other names in my portfolio, so good luck to all cuz we probably are gonna need it.

this is a reply both to SilkRoad and to gimmegimmeminemine as both have raised the issue, for KBLB, of production in a way that has me wondering whether the production is really the spools?

More precisely, are future focused production efforts of cocoons, of licensing technology for features cocoons can supply?

If the cocoons can be spooled up does KBLB have to make the fabric, design the garment or device or material using the spools? Let me use this example, early in the life of Qualcom, they entered a joint venture to prove cell phones could be built and towers could be set up, so they created joint ventures for each of those necessary tasks intending to exit as soon as skepticism was disproven, to focus on their goal of designing the chips for the phones others would build from licensing their technology.

I am of the opinion that KBLB only needs to demonstrate to key decision makers that the material can be made as designed. Am I wrong?

interesting press release out today, July 20, 2020, that there will be a share consolidation. Sounds like a reverse split? The result will be having 1 share after the consolidation for every 10 shares held at the time of the consolidation. Understandable with shares trading at a fraction of a penny; if anything I am surprised it was not 1 for every thousand, right?

I am still on board with everything I see and hear. I am still on board as customer and as shareholder. Hoping for better path of financial results in the future.

I did see an "effective date" for the consolidation. July 22nd. Not aware if that is pre market day pricing or after close of market that day? I did see the company had an offer on the table to sell shares at three cents a share to raise capital and I am thinking shares trading at a fraction of a penny were making that a non-starter. If the reverse split (do I have to call it a consolidation?) brings shares to pricing at about three or four cents a share in the market, maybe the offering will be successful at raising another round of funding as have past cycles of raising capital this way?

The reports from owners of retail locations continue to look increasingly bleak. The reports from consumer impulse purchases, (say fashion, food, urban active lifestyle), are going to be volatile this year.

Not sure how anyone in retail (out of the top performing stakeholders) is profitable nowadays and the introduction of new styles (maybe new materials?) is not a sure, nor quick, path; is it?

thank you LONALLEN for posting the link to the roadmap for RYPPF to introduce revamped ecommerce, styles, and emphasis on the feedback of customers as we buy. I greatly appreciate your also posting about the new CFO whose background in garments seems to be promising. A lot to like here!!

I have a couple of questions for you as well as anyone reading this posting.

1. Have you previously bought clothing or accessories from the RYU website?

2. If so, was your experience entirely automated or partly with employee assistance/interaction?

3. Did you suggest any design ideas to RYU in the past?

4. If so, how well received were suggestions?

I liked the past CEO as much as the new one. I think, as an outsider with only the roles of customer and shareholder, that the gracious transition under so much stress is a remarkably good accomplishment all around.

I would like to see some experimentation and hope that we enjoy that in design, fabric, operation from RYU. I will stay long and continue as a customer, too

replying to Chrysanthemis in detail:

Chrysanthemis: From my more careful reading of the settlement, it consists of

1. Old promises repeated (e g to pursue the Tri-Way dividend) and non-binding declarations of intent (e g the buyback). As nothing of this has any timing, I wouldn't pay too much attention to any of it.

Fussy Group reply to 1. Remember WHY the Tri-Way dividend did not happen? The reason given then was discovering securities rules. A dividend distribution would in fact create a publicly traded Tri-Way, right? Some expenses and compliance issues to overcome beyond the authority of this Judge? What about this judge reacting to learning he was misled, lied to by the parties and lied to by the attorneys? Tri-Way is NOT a party to this settlement but it will pay a newly appointed director with veto power over a majority of other directors? Might be mores sensible for a reverse merger with Tri-Way taking over SIAF, becoming publicly traded as SIAF, and ending the Spin-Out model?

Chrysanthemis: 2. Corporate reforms, notably the new CFO, the corporate committee and the nomination of the two directors with the power to block dilution. This last is less of a concession than it seems initially, because the settlement allows Solomon to terminate their services at will, possibly even within the first two years. And the committee has no defined powers against Solomon.

Fussy Group reply to 2. Real Dutch at one time was offering to be nominated to become a member of the board of directors. Later, he became bitter enough that probably he was no longer as strongly supported as he had been well-deserving to have been. Running a candidate for the board will likely still happen as part of what does get us on a path from this mess, but, not the way this was set up. This puts the expense of two directors on the corporation that the judge is asked to approve when the court has no jurisdiction for this specific relief. This is just corrupt. The judge will see it for what it is, a dead end, and probably dismiss the case. Shareholders should react. I disagree with Real Dutch that the looters should have their turn running the company. They can offer candidates for the board, they can offer terms for a loan, they can buy shares in the market, that is how they get their turns. We all hope the business of selling fish, trading fish, and maybe leasing land, is good, but, the company seems constantly without cash to take logical actions, right? Hoping that new directors will bring in funding that has failed before is less practical than a funding proposal that is definite and includes, as part of funding, designation of nominees to be voted as directors, right?




Chrysanthemis: All in all, it seems that the core of the settlement consists of Solomon paying the plaintiffs to go away. The rest is only decoration, and doesn't bring about any significant and certain improvement.

Fussy reply to summary from Chrysanthemis. Yes, but worse than decoration, it is furthering looting. The settlement is contrary to our interests as shareholders.

Nordstorm made wonderful points. However, too optimistic that any change at all can be beneficial. Reasoned change, yes. Properly conducting business, yes. Looting, not what I support.

reply to spartyJ about "crackdown on corruption in China." If you search that phrase, you will find, beginning in 2012, it is the signature cause for the current President for Life of China, with expansion of targets at intervals of about two years.

what is likely is different from what is proposed. No way to fix the mess made by the parties and no reason for the judge to allow them to pretend they are doing honest efforts.

I wonder why the plaintiffs did not reveal what they saw if anything when they arrived in China. Did they actually visit facilities? Did they confirm assets exist for either or both (Tri-Way, SIAF)? Did the other directors of Tri-Way who are not directors of SIAF meet and negotiate with plaintiffs?

China is always hoping for an opportunity to reveal and punish corruption, especially if foreign directed corruption within China. This fiasco is not going to be settled in New York. Only getting messier with each fact revealed.

I am unsure if downthehatch is being sarcastic about this being a buying opportunity. what we do know is that SIAF transferred assets to Tri-Way, partly for shares but mostly for nothing we understand. also, SIAF continued to provide the office, the staff, the money and the operating for the ponds and the trading even though Tri-Way was NOT paying SIAF as would have been normal business.

if the litigation is settled with a director appointed to each of Tri-Way and to SIAF that is looting the same asset already transferred for inadequate benefit. Is there cash flow from trading that is done by different people in different offices or just two separate hats on one operation? same question for production from the ponds and tanks?

if assets were looted from SIAF with the promise of a dividend in their new home at Tri-Way, is the solution a dividend of shares in Tri-Way or unwinding the looting to return asset back to SIAF? If Tri-Way has other assets and other operations, what are they and how were they funded separately from SIAF?

is listing in Hong Kong no longer scooping money from markets?

At each step of the reasons to create Tri-Way and promise a dividend, there is a breakdown. Time to unwind Tri-Way as a separate entity?

what is the reason for this being seen by anyone as adding value to SIAF from this proposed settlement?

SIAF is not receiving funds, is it?

SIAF is adding expensive new designated director who will not be elected by shareholders and who will have veto over key action by the board in violation of many rules, regulations, practices and laws so how can that be good?

The court does not have Tri-Way a a party to the original case; arguably to the settlement proposal but that proposal is going to fail for many reasons, so no there is no jurisdiction over Tri-Way. Can the court get the parties to honestly pursue a settlement? Should the court dismiss the action? Should the court refer the record to the SEC and DoJ for likely crimes by the parties and the attorneys for plaintiffs?

can someone post the case number and other information that must be referenced when shareholders send emails to Furman_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov so that they are put in the right que?

thank you

also, can a moderator tack such information where it is found without searching the many comments?

thank you

the court has limited jurisdiction but certainly has power when finding out it was misled by the parties and their attorneys. this case is NOT going to get to a settlement that makes sense, but, we should all want the court to appreciate what was done to mislead everyone

plaintiffs lied to or misled court, and, if court realizes that Tri-Way received assets from SIAF without paying SIAF, then bundling entities is only road to settlement.

SIAF assets transferred to Tri-Way without payment and then Tri-Way assets or shares transferred in settlement with future payments to an appointed director of each entity is ripping off SIAF shareholders.

They expect this to fly without fight. and the ambiguity about what happens to the A shares is an insult to calling this a settlement that resolves what happens to Solomon Lee. This was not a win for him, his shares in Tri-Way bribing the plaintiffs, but, the loss of SIAF assets to Tri-Way when bundled with the settlement smells fraudulent against SIAF shareholders. since when do those taking bribes get to appoint a director and since when must directors vote unanimously? this is not going to go well

reply to webslinger, saying yes, you are correct that the consequences of the cocoon being partly digested for the exit of the silk moth does leave only shorter and partially altered by digestive enzyme portions of the cocoon. The portions are processed the same, so think of it as multiplying the effort to process without any increase in yield, meaning, instead of processing a single silk cocoon, the different fragments each require the effort without as long a yield, but still producing a yield that is usable with a loss of gloss (less shiny) but an advantage in how the finished silk fabric will "drape."

I have dug even deeper into the wild silk moth stories available on line. Produced from Northeastern India as well as from Thailand with a few variations in harvesting strategies. At one extreme, harvesting empty cocoons from the ground near the food (likely caster plants) but that seems to have produced shorter and weaker silk that also produces fabric with some changed features, good and bad -- less shiny, better draping. Other choices up to the most production efficiency by slicing open the cocoons and having the pupae moved to continue outside of the cocoon so that the cocoons are not damaged by the digestive enzymes used when the pupae later develop and eat their way out. Also, shortening cycle time from when the cocoon is created until when it is ready for processing.

The particular qualities that may be enhancing value with spider rather than silk from silk moths might, for some market applications, require longer lengths, right? On the other hand, we already know from the competing bio-engineered goo developers that their applications could fall in competition to chopped fibers from what we hope kblb brings to the market, right? Materials scientists can tell us whether chopped, short, or long lengths are the right ones for each application, and which require combinations thereof; I might keep digging and perhaps do some design of experiments?

It would be fun to explore more. But, the deeper dig says this is outside the wheelhouse of the science resources let alone financial capabilities of kblb to pursue. By the way, wild silk moths are rarely described as found (because the moth only flies a couple of days in its life) but live commonly in coastal shrubby areas along most of the West Coast of North America. Anyone game to start up a separate .....

thanks to webslinger and trainer2 for their fascinating pursuit of quantifying some of the critical issues, kudos. Really important to follow their thinking if anyone were truly doing due diligence!

Wow. I thought I had dug into this, but am learning from each of you and appreciate what you have been posting here. I went to the link provided by webslinger and noticed something that surprised me: the distinction between silk moths that are domesticated (sightless, flightless, dependent) or wild silk moths.

I had not previously realized or on my own found that silk moths could live off other than mulberry leaves, but, it turns out that wild ones do. Okay, then wild ones do not create silk? Wrong, their silk sells for MORE than silk from domesticated silk moths. What? Why? Oh, there is a market for silk made without killing the emerging moths. Double the price!

Hmmmm, on the one hand, the kind of genetic engineering focus that kblb is pursuing means that sticking with domestic silk moths for production is reasonable, but, to discover traits or genes or potential (for dietary changes?) there would also be a reason to have wild silk moths in the domain, right?

If boiling the cocoons is to kill the moth before it emerges from the cocoon, thereby making the silk controversial in two at the top of the higher end markets, how much longer to allow emerging of the moth and how much of the silk is lost by the moth eating its way out of the cocoon so that,(( to follow in the kind of analysis that webslinger and trainer2 have been mentoring me to pursue )), would there be and how does that impact processing yield as well as selling price of the silk? I am excited, as what if a loss of a percent of yield and an increase of two days in the cycle results in opening the market that pays double prices already? Is that market meaningful? Maybe it is not as meaningful as medical or technical textiles, okay?

What if other traits of the wild silk moth population influence the properties of the silk? Hmmmm, a lot to, err, digest here beyond merely the insecticide residue on the mulberry leaves getting past the "lab-qualified" receiving steps that we saw fail already.

I am nodding yes to the speculation from post by ks1977, also to the most recent couple of posts by downthehatch. SIAF is more intriguing than ever, from this point of view, but, tempered by all the pain and losses suffered by shareholders. The potential for CA to build more facilities that can profitably grow fish without some of the environmental hazards others might be promoting is attractive, more so than ever, with pronouncements of food shortage globally spreading, as any place that has water can be potentially aquafarming. What I have only seen was curated by realdutch about the fish farms that went to Tri-Way Industries without concurrent economic benefit to SIAF.

Let me try out this as a settlement fantasy: What if the reasoning for the settlement was an enforceable set of promises towards distributing share in some formula (or, oh my, utter fantasy, dividend payout) from Tri_way for SIAF in part as well as shareholders of SIAF as of dates already in the past? Would SIAF shareholders at time of unmet announced dividends have some separate stake or claim from later, post default, holders of positions in SIAF? Or, if there is any late payout, in shares, would that claim ride with the shares regardless of when acquired, thereby accounting for resistance from price dropping below (take your pick, is it eight, seven, six or five) cents per share currently trading?

Does anyone have any information that they can post here about my questions after trying to get an idea of what might be going on?

-- whether patients who were already on the Eversense Continuous Glucose Monitor are switching away? Because of the pandemic or what other reasons? I recall reading that a high percentage of patients were, before the pandemic, staying with it, and, I heard in the latest investor conference call that the pandemic consequences included shutting down any new patient initiations. Okay, no new patients starting, but, what about prior patients remaining and getting their next replacement by staying with Eversense? If patients WANT to stay on Eversense in all this chaos, I want to know; do you?

-- why there was such a large write-off for obsolete inventory in the quarterly report just out? I am wondering, specifically, if that means discontinued finished/components of a model (for example, writing off the inventory that would have been only devoted to the shorter time model rather than the future longer lasting model (change from three months to six or even twelve months between changing by patient))? In other words, is it reasonable to believe SENS is already taking hits to evolve to its future models?

-- if the providers, the diabetic endocrinologists, have decided "to be or not to be" trained to provide Eversense to their patients? I get it that arranging training was futile during the height of the pandemic lock-downs, and that the training staff has all been let go, right? I am more curious if the provider community is even wanting to be trained: After all, if past patients demand staying on the Everense, and, if new patient interest is there, that means training gets retarted, right? Okay, I get it, the question is insurance coverage, so likely any real surge is dependent on more generous coverage, yes, but, does anyone have a sense to share if providers are intending, in a world after pandemic, to aid training and qualifying to dispense their prescribing Eversense to their clinic patients?

-- are rivals with or without loyalty for refills? I get it that there is no real "apple to apple" comparison to any rivalry, but, whatever else is in use, at least in old material on the website, was not getting as high a refill rate, so patients moving towards the use of Eversense seemed underway before killed off by the pandemic, right?

-- is the precarious financial plight a kiss of death? In other words, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy might be unfolding? The question: will providers and patients stay away because of the insolvency facing SENS?

reply to RealDutch about the thinking in settling the litigation, either the plaintiffs just wanted out, or, they have a settlement that is targeting more than just an exit. The new attorney offers a history of negotiation and is fluent in languages for USA and China, so let's try to guess for fun what might be in the settlement? The request to get an extension of time for the settlement said for both the reason of change of attorneys, and, for a reason related to negotiations for the settlement. My speculation, prior to learning this information, was that plaintiffs were paying to change attorneys, get new attorneys up to speed, and exiting by settlement, with the speculation on my part that they would only be spending more money to get out if Solomon had out-negotiated them. How? Again, my speculation was that they entered the litigation believing that Solomon would be unable to fund hiring competent attorneys for defending against the litigation, and, proven wrong were anxious to exit. My back-up theory was speculating that plaintiffs believed Solomon had lost the confidence of the local government and cooperatives needed to even have a chance of continuing in business, and, again, having been proven wrong, were trying to exit.

Solomon leading SIAF did get stimulus lending signed off by the local government, but in a small amount. That might be meaningful, but, it is also potentially meaningless for shareholders because of all the other problems that bedevil SIAF at every turn. My personal view, based only on reading the public record, is that when SIAF took the write-offs on the regional butchering business as a hit without sharing more of the pain than loss of jobs and loss of opportunities for staying in that business, that was also investing in credibility with the local government, and, I feel vindicated in that view (so far). (Getting stimulus funding was a BIG accomplishment, and, means being on the list that local government wants to keep going).

Yes, you are right, prospects for getting a spin out through listings in Hong Kong are dismal. Another in too many steps that failed. However, focusing on Tri-Way, you always realized if the plaintiffs were getting paid to leave, that pay was from assets in Tri-Way.

Why fight to keep the terms of settlement secret? No public disclosure required on the Tri-Way side but public disclosure required on the SIAF side. Tri-Way owes money to SIAF, but, a deal to pay the plaintiffs rather than to pay SIAF would potentially be a problem in the court, so an attorney claiming capability in the language where the assets are and where the deal can be done in maximized obscurity from SIAF shareholders (and the judge in the USA) is the possible risk from the substitution of attorneys. Only if the attorney for both countries is "in on the deal" can that kind of structure fly without being grounded, right?

Is there any possible reason to keep SIAF alive? Zerohedge claimed many times that the only reason has always been to sell shares rather than operate a business. Solomon may be distrusted by many shareholders, but, he still appears to have control and still says that he is keeping the doors open with restructuring.

I am gambling that there MIGHT be ongoing profitable fish raising and that there MIGHT be a reorganization that recombines SIAF with Tri-Way into one entity that attempts to rename itself, also re-purpose away from the spin-out model that had only failures and poisoned anyone from buying in for that as a business purpose. Operate with the assets as is without renaming and repurposing makes no sense. Renaming and repurposing invites recaptilizing, including another reverse split and appearing to reboot as a more substantial entity.

That is what I expect we will be seeing.

replying to Thellus wondering about my forecast.

If RealDutch is right that SIAF goes dark now, then obviously my forecast is totally wrong.

All the negatives there, yes. But, are there any positives? I think the litigation being settled with the plaintiffs being forced to change attorneys (spend money) is a new page in the company history.

The company has a history of reporting. yes, late. Yes, lame. but, the company, unlike many others from China has a history of compliance which is bolstered by the settlement in favor of the company. A reorganization, a recapitalization, necessarily changes Solomon's status. Many posts here have speculated about why Solomon through SIAF went unpaid from Tri-Way. Why? I don't know, but, I have read those postings and wondered myself. SIAF is a shareholder and creditor, in a material way, to Tri-Way. Tri-Way was always seen as the cleaner entity going forward, but, that is no longer true. Tri-Way has so many failed facets that it is laughable to say it still has an advantage as an entity compared to SIAF.

What does Tri-Way have? Former assets of SIAF, yes. But, what more? Better bargaining than SIAF? How is that possible if Solomon runs both? RealDutch speculated that the other owners in Tri-Way have some financial power of their own that either is stronger than Solomon or that Solomon wants favored over SIAF.

Again, only if there are sales of fish ongoing, and, only if there is remaining credibility with the local government and cooperatives, then an alternative reboot to the path would be a reverse split, a change of name and a change of business purpose. Why now? Because the path for Tri-Way to go public in Hong Kong is closed. What is Tri-Way, the former fish ponds from SIAF plus fish trading. Recombining Tri-Way with SIAF under either name is unlikely, as both have too many failure in the past. The original business plan for SIAF was to spin out agro business deals, fish ponds, butchering, fertilizer, maybe even restaurants or wholesale foods. That has failed at every turn, no reason to continue the entity. Why now? The litigation being settled favorably to the company PLUS the loans (albeit small) from the virus stimulus in China, together, open the door to explain the change in structure. A combination of entities, a change in business purpose, name, structure, a reverse split for a separation point in capitalization look back.

I agree with the intriguing idea that is raised in the post from NordStorm about the change of attorneys.

I was happy, as a shareholder, when I saw that SIAF was represented by competent looking lawyers for this litigation. Perhaps, going back to that point in time, the attorneys for the action did not expect Solomon to be able to hire competent representation?

I was happy, as a shareholder, when I saw that SIAF qualified and obtained stimulus loans in China. This demonstrated that SIAF (Solomon) had credibility with the local communist officials.

I was disappointed to watch the bitterness with some posters here. Understandable, but still disappointed.

Seeing the latest post from NordStorm has encouraged me SO greatly that I am back to adding to my position. We all knew, from the outset of protests in Hong Kong, that the idea of securities offered in Hong Kong as a rescue exit for Tri-Way was probably delayed, and, we know from this week that the clampdown on Hong Kong has probably sealed that possibility closed.

There are still far fetched tactics available. If, in fact, fish are being produced, delivered and satisfying customers, that is all good. If SIAF is still credible with local government and cooperatives, that is fantastically good. If the plaintiffs tried to exit with a dismissal that now requires they first replace their attorneys, that is WOW good for the rest of us shareholders. I am suddenly feeling cheerful about SIAF

If the fish are making money, if the company is credible with local government and cooperatives, and if the litigation is ending in favor of the company, then this is what I see as the next outcome -- the venture model is over, instead of SIAF to spin out units, the companies will reconsolidate within the one publicly traded company, SIAF less likely to be the legacy of the reorganization than SIAF and Tri-Way combining in almost a reverse merger, rename and repurpose, reverse split again

interesting link and when I went to it, there was also a link to this article using spider silk protein impregnated fabric for face masks, but, it seems beside the point as they use a different protein to claim they can capture/trap the virus in their disposable face masks; see https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seevix-material-sciences-synthetic-svx-spidersilk-to-be-used-in-filters-to-neutralize-covid-19-301056571.html

the woman now being reported as if the first person from whom an animal hosted virus successfully jumped to start the CoVID 19 pandemic said she thinks she got it from sharing the bathroom with the meat sellers in the live food market where she was selling fresh (live) shrimp. What if people fear the virus jumped from shrimp to humans? The people in Peru heard it came from bats and a group torched the caves where bats live. This might yet become far uglier, though I appreciate the increasing optimism being expressed about the risks from the virus if not the risks of investing in Chinese agriculture. Admittedly, not news from China, but, I don't even know where to begin trying to guess why my local grocery store is selling shrimp at half the price from most of the past year. Is shrimp suddenly unprofitable, a glut on market, or being avoided by past buyers?

There seems to be such an unending string of bad news but maybe the next report will prove different. SIAF did get a bailout loan, proving it has the right reputation with local government and is expected to prove itself a food supplier. I thought that was the great pivot to better news to come. I admit to feeling discouragement now.

incredible idea but well timed and well stated, to be worried about assurances of food supplies. Yes, the past problems in pork and poultry did not help SIAF as they were headlines, so maybe the catch up is about to be our better future?

One poultry producer in the USA was interviewed yesterday saying it takes his company 50 days from targeting their production to it being in a truck to a grocery store, and, they have faced a fourfold increase in orders from grocery stores and a complete shut off of orders from cruise ships. He said, outside range, 55 days from last week before adjustments totally flow through the system.

does anyone know if this is the same family as the Neil Stein who is a famed fish restaurant owner? That would be a nice!

Thank you for the link to the letters published by the judge. Each is deserving of follow through on behalf of all shareholder.

I thought the disclosure of material financing could be done a few days after all necessary elements were in place. If so, they might be able to rely on having the dismissal before saying they are then compelled to make the disclosure, right? Again, collapsing the different steps makes the change in control obvious from the outset, but, if the settlement has steps yet in contemplation with disclosure triggers past the finalization of the judgment, that goes back to the point of why would SEIDEN take on the risks and liability of not being released from representing parties to the settlement?

I want to thank "NordStorm" for such a thoughtful (if pessimistic) view of the settlement as an act of private corruption. I want to believe that SEIDEN would have already long ago filed a motion to be released as attorneys of record rather than risk any later fallout.

If the settlement details are not released, even if judgment were to be finalized, that opens up a continuing risk to a voidable judgment.

The lack of solvency is the block to every possible way out of this. The tactic of exploiting insolvency as part of the settlement is the only sense I can see. Normally, insolvency wipes out old equityholders with a newly created equityholding class of claimants.

Are there prior loanholders who might be claimants involuntarily converted to members of the new class of claimants that exclude prior shareholders? Would all old equityholders share as members of the claimant class? That is unlikely, which, is why I believe a negotiated path for investment is coupled with change of control as the underlying settlement.

Bear in mind in the past how Solomon seemed to believe he would still have money tendered for shares? Maybe "rights" are to be issued that only reach possible value if shareholders add capital to fund the company? Then only those adding money actualize such rights. Or, maybe those special shares held by Solomon are also subject to being wiped out unless capital is added? Maybe Solomon has his shares pooled so that his holdings are diluted in proportion to other's funding their rights from common shares? Or, perhaps some special new loan facility as hoped for by "RealDutch" is going to appear? If a new loan is to appear, that could also be done as a step among several steps so as not to expose the contemplated insolvency consequences underlying the value to the settlement.

I agree with the thoughts posted by "DownTheHatch" -- it seems unreasonable to believe that there can be money from SIAF to pay SEIDEN a reward for the litigation. But, there were comments saying that the plaintiffs had gone to China for face-to-face negotiations, right? That would have put them in exposure to the coronavirus, for sure, so what a reward for their putting themselves on the front lines!! I also cannot come up with a theory for what the plaintiffs received that would encourage dismissing with prejudice, but, as unlikely (and as unlucky) as it sounds, maybe plaintiffs negotiated the right to appoint a majority of the candidates for the board of directors of both SIAF as well as TRW?

We all know the history of Solomon agreeing to terms on loans that are worse than horrible, and we all know that "RealDutch" (who shares his honest reactions as well as his deep dives into research and due diligence) keeps hammering on points that anyone ought to address in a settlement. How did the settlement turn out? Is it some kind of pre-packaged insolvency proceedings that wipes out all equityholders but does provide financing with change of control?

Unsafe as it is to say out loud, I speculated that Solomon's keeping credibility with local government as well as with cooperatives, plus having the ability to build out the facilities is an accomplishment sufficient to have lured me in as an investor. The financing available to those on such relations has been re-affirmed as part of the response in China to the coronavirus crises, but, that could not have been known to plaintiffs at the time of their negotiating any settlement.

sadly, nothing we are reading or writing here impacts the status of our SIAF holdings.

As to the pandemic? we almost have our answers, maybe people are not used to doing the calculations? Still, lots of speculation. Background to what happened in social media is that the zerohedge.com website has been posting lots of info as well as speculation about the 2019 NCoV. One point that they have posted is that either the 2019 NCoV is bio engineered OR it is mutating fast enough to have incorporated what otherwise is only explained by having been bio-engineered. On top of that, the site has been posting explicitly what dots it believes can be connected to expose whose lab is most likely to have done the bio-engineering. Yes, all those postings got it blamed for inciting hatred against that lab and for allegedly that reason, banned from social media. The data increasingly appears to support the theory of having been bio-engineered. The engineering, while some suspect as weaponizing, is more likely to be in the form of immunizing; but, in the strange way it is as if in preparing for bio-warfare exposure the population is inoculated with the inoculation itself spreading almost without symptoms in a healthy young population cohort (say, maybe pre-teen?), with distress symptoms and follow-on illness in a large population cohort (say, 20 through 50 year olds?} while sadly but intentionally having high mortality for another large population cohort (say those over 50, especially those over 70, and most especially those with co-morbidities such as respiratory or renal illnesses?}

key to all this is really finding out if 2019 NCoV is or is not mutating fast enough to cause new infections in those already recovered from (and thereby immunized) by their first bout. If it is mutating fast, expect people to get infected, develop antibodies but then fall victim to a mutation for which they are not yet immunized. If it is bio-engineered OR if it is no longer mutating (a real long-shot), then we are witnessing a miraculous rate of immunizing of the population. Hence the speculative postings hosted by zerohedge.com about the "coincidences" that are so unbelievable for this to be playing out this way on a path so far meeting their speculations.

Will this help us with our SIAF investments? I don't see how.

the doctor is a politician, ran for public office as a Democrat firebrand to change world health, so, maybe the finance guy focused on oil markets is the better and more reliable one to be hearing. The Wuhan Flu is a wild card for maybe two more weeks before enough is known to be reasonably reflected in markets. At this moment, there is speculation that China will be shutting down live fish markets; that is disaster for SIAF or TRW. In one week, maybe the uncertainty will be cut by half, maybe gone in two weeks. This does not mean that there will not be economic impacts beyond then, just that the heightened risks from uncertainty will have run through the markets. If anyone were willing to take a speculation on adding shares held in SIAF, this is the window, right? If everything that can go right does go right, maybe in April or May of 2020 the shareholder reports will confirm. If short of that? Well, probably no more public reporting by May, 2020 cuz that is how bad things are likely to have gone, right?

I did a little reading about silk and uzbekistan cuz that country showed so high in the list of existing silk markets but is such a poor country. I have NO REASON to believe KBLB is there or exploring being there, but this article was just too nice not to share: https://www.advantour.com/uzbekistan/culture/handicrafts/weaving.htm

a camera on the chickens on the rented but former plantation land?
reply to 'spartyJ' about watching the fish -- I have hoped for live webcams on the fish ever since first learning about SIAF, but even so I do appreciate your humor and contribution with your most recent comment

two newsworthy "sharing" topics to add while here.

One quite negative, and I am sad to share the report that organized criminal gangs are forcing farming cooperatives to sell their animals at bargain prices to then be resold (or do we at SIAF shareholding wakes call this "trading"?), with some groups even buying diseased animals to then be added to the herds that the organized criminals will be getting at the bargain pricing as the direct result of panic when the selling cooperatives discover the risk from the diseased animals that unknown to the sellers were just introduced by the bargain-seeking buyers.

The transactions include entire herds and in multiple regions across the South as well as West of agriculture in China.

Would camera surveillance help protect against this particular risk? The report said that the gangs of organized criminals use herders, trucks and even drones to place the baited animals. The bacterial balancing of the pond water for SIAF-styles of aquaculture might have vulnerabilities that deserve defending against.

The other report, a hugely positive one, is that investors' searches on the internet were being tracked, and, in the last days following the news that China agreed to a fourfold increase of agricultural purchases from the USA, some 60% of searches related to ways to invest in China. Will many of those searches somehow stumble on our lottery tickets in the name of SIAF? Might the path ahead be changing?

Lastly, I read some of the postings here about the delay in the A's to our Q's. I thought the delay was specifically explained as because of negotiations that included BOTH of SIAF and TRW interests. I can appreciate why no hope is held out even with that emphasis. SIAF with or without ponds is really SIAF with or without TRW (and, remote possibility of deal with other cooperatives hiring CA or TRW). I think there is a remote chance of a new disclosure cuz someone wants to tie up to those ponds cuz someone wants to promote fish protein as an investment opportunity. Might be a positive surprise behind this delay?

interesting article posted in a link from 'hopeabides' about the potential for silk production from Uganda, especially the pointing out that India is net negative, using more than it has produced, as well as, that Uganda might have too long a dry weather pattern in many years for the survival of mulberry trees. Looks to me as if Uzbekistan and India if expansion in Viet Nam is being leap frogged. Uzbekistan has favorable conditions, established infrastructure plus trade deals in place with China, Russia, India, Europe and USA.

anyone able to pot information here about kblb having mulberry trees in Texas? Is that to send leaves to Michigan? What is the status of kblb production in Texas, is it just leaves?

one worrisome (in impact on production) point from that article about Uganda was the comment that different mulberry varieties are suited for different regions. just how much of an impact does diet differences have on the silk production?

I am happy with the press release, as well as the expanded trading volume and recovering pricing of the shareholder stake in kblb, but, still maybe a year away from users having products in their hands from earliest commercial production?

the "scaled up" production of yarn is obviously imminent. maybe, based on the press release last night that John Rice will be in Viet Nam, the next sequential batch might start a cycle beginning (at the existing facility), what, every two months?

That produces cocoons that get sent to a different company's facility to be made into yarn, which then gets shipped to customers, who likely are not resellers of the yarn but are then combining the yarn into, what, fabrics? The fabrics then get sold to yet other customers in the vendor chain from the silk worms to some ultimate finished product. We are expecting the finished products to be, what, clothing?

I am all in for most uses, but, how much value or credibility comes from seeing the yarn make clothing? If for military and law enforcement personnel to be safer and more comfortable, then hoorah. But, if there are going to be future earnings to make us richly rewarded...?

I was hoping for more industrial uses to be developed. Imagine if the fibers are added to, say, tires on aircraft?

(a side note to earlier postings about climate and such: history is different depending on your vantage point. I flew over the everglades at intervals and was astonished at housing replacing plantations that had replaced the "slow moving river." I started out in college as a geology major and recall that the distant geological cycles included repeatedly, at intervals of many hundreds of thousands of years, sea levels where only the mountain tops of California were islands. The urbanizationn of the everglades or the rainforests or even the ecosystems everywhere on the planet will not be measurably changed by the replacement of coal, batteries or nylon fabrics)

might be helpful if anyone who sends the questions in would also post here, perhaps inspiring related questions or even more requesting such information?

my request, ignored the two previous cycles when I sent messages on to Peter, was for webcams so that we can watch locations and activities.

the questions from RealDutch might be ones that cannot be answered publicly because of impact on negotiations,

I guess I do have one more question I will send along today: given the scope of the African swine flu problems in China, has that had any impact on the likely markets for grasses or fodder production by the company?

reply to RealDutch -- the company, that is, Solomon, will prevail so long as he appears to do what is within reason for someone in business. Not business in Amsterdam or Hamburg but business in China. Investing in China is much wilder than a court will second-guess. Anyone thinking the litigation is other than a place at a negotiating table is delusional. Anyone thinking creditors can force action before was delusional, too. The question at this point in history for investors in China is whether creditors get what Martin Whitman used to be famous for, but, even he, the master of debt bargains into equity gains, was crushed a few years ago because of illiquidity at a time when many of his positions were in Hong Kong entities....

replying to RealDutch

This is a sad story but also a speculative opportunity. So long as there are prospects for CONTINUING streams of revenues from operations, there has also been a chance to negotiate settlements that satisfy debtholders and hold out a sliver of a chance of hope for shareholders.

The story begins because of the reverse merger by which Chinese investments including SIAF shares became available to be traded in markets in the tide of other deals and probably hundreds failed in contrast to each that has succeeded.

The story goes from bad to worse and from worse to worser.

This includes the leverage attempts. This is about the SIAF defaults on what were horrendous loans that were in face amounts far higher than actual funding received, which is typical of lending when the risks are overwhelmingly for likely default. These were bad loans from the first moment. They only got worse. A tougher management might have stopped earlier than getting into such a disaster.

However, in Asian culture, where continuing to have persons employed is an important idea over and above basic economics or business realities, there were already decades of companies continuing to exist merely to prevent the honest taking of losses on bad loans that ought to have the consequences more familiar to the "destructive" consequences known for failure.

Look at the news about two days ago that a state owned enterprise in China MIGHT be declared insolvent instead of allowed to continue though unable to meet its loan obligations. THIS IS BIG NEWS FOR US. Yes, there is a risk that our "lottery ticket" of shares in SIAF might (but only still MIGHT) be cancelled rather than allowed to run on during endless defaults.

Those who made these high risk loans were under policies and "practices" in China almost forced to wait out negotiations rather than get courts to allow them to take value out of China. Will that soon change is a question on the minds of all watching the imminent risk of China changing policies about debts unsatisfied having the consequence to have destroyed even state-owned enterprises, which by all accounts were far more protected than our position in SIAF.

Chances are gloomy, yes. But, at least at this moment, we who believe the operations are and will continue to be profitable have a lottery ticket that might in time and circumstances pay off well. Everything is a story, though, and what I really wish was that we had real time web cams on the ponds and fields. If shrimp, for example, are being bred, raised and marketed profitably, then I am glad to have my shares. I understand why the shares trade infrequently. I understand why most invetors or speculators would stay far far far away. But, I read that Solomon was experienced in Malaysian aquaculture and is able to deal with cooperatives and communes and regional governments better than the others I read about. Don't hate dilution of our shares, that might still be a way to transition through this seeming horrible circumstance.