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.
Andrew - just curious here but if the Starr complaint were to go to trial, is it likely that Carson Block/MW or Citron would be required to provide testimony/depositions UNDER OATH? I'm asking because it seems that Starr filed its complaint based on the allegations made by MW, Citron and others....I'm assuming that these "facts" supporting the allegations would need to be presented to the Court at the appropriate time. Otherwise, Starr has no case, unless they perform their own investigation and present their own findings as "fact" (assuming that what they find supports their complaint of course)? Thanks......
Do we know if the Court has granted/rejected the request for extension as of yet?
A word of caution - never take my word for anything :)
Piper Jaffray is an investment bank and not related to the lawfirm
Maybe they should consider taking out the "Big 4" reference in the FAQ's while they're at it........
Looks like she's an Assistant Editor at PR Newswire (I found her on LinkedIn).
General Questions for Traders
As someone who has typically been a buy-and-hold guy I have some questions. It has become obvious that there are not many (any?) stocks in the CGS space that I want to be "married" to for any length of time given the widespread volatility here - call it one of the lessons I've learned from holding CCME and being an iHub member for awhile now.
The overwhelming number of posts here are guys trading in and out of positions on a short term basis, sometimes hourly. My question is: how big a position do you want to take to make it worth your while? I realize this may be company-dependent, illiquid stocks are tougher, etc. But let's say you have a $4 stock that you think might pop to $5 prior to an earnings report or for whatever reason - you want in. Generally, do you buy 1K, 10K, 100K shares? How do you get into a position that is large enough to make the potential profit worth your while without driving the price up and then get out without driving it down assuming you want to maximize your gain? Just curious....all thoughts are welcome as usual. Thanks.
-Chuck
Right - the mention of PWC comes in the CME press release which is incorporated in the 8K.........
FHM - as I posted last night, I believe Kung is gone because that's what it clearly says in the first paragraph of the recently filed 8K. They filed because Nasdaq is telling them that they only have two independent directors instead of the three that are needed and the company further states that it is searching for a Kung replacement.
Also, the above is enough for me but I noticed that in the company PR discussing the hiring of Piper, one of the other Audit Committee members is quoted. I would assume that such a release might normally have the Chairman of the Audit Committee quoted - not the case here so, again, further indication for me that Kung said adios.......not that I really needed it.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about Andrew
Tom - I'm assuming the guy is toast since the company appears to be in violation of the "three independent directors" rule......what's confusing is that he is still listed on the website.
Chris - thanks for clarifying. Your second post makes a lot more sense and, frankly, is what anyone who has followed your previous posts would have expected from you in the first place.
BTW, it's ok to be pessimistic with this management team. I know I am as well :)
1-2%? I mean, seriously, that would classify every publically traded company as a "fraud". A fraud is something that is perpetrated on the investing public that implies premeditative and malicious conduct, intent to deceive, etc. 1-2% to me is nothing more than a balance sheet or income statement item that needs to be restated (oh, originally we said we had $200 million in the bank and we really only have $195 million). If you are going to be fradulant, them "go big or go home". We don't know if it's big, and Cheng certainly hasn't gone home yet.
My point is that for this to be fraud, the issues would need to be a lot greater and we simply don't have that type of insight or information available yet.....and, anyway, how does one express these issues as some sort of percentage.....percentage of what??
HAHA - kind of like "Z.C. (Zheng Cheng) and the Sunshine Band" :)
You should ask the families of all the people around the world that this guy has affected in a negative way whether or not the money was well spent......
It's been a long time coming and my hat is off to those brave Americans who were part of the mission. Those of us who live within an hour's drive of NYC (I have lived here all my life) either knew someone who was killed on 9/11/01, or know people who lost friends and family members, when those buildings came down. The best man in my wedding 26 years ago was a NYFD "first responder". It was one of the saddest and most shocking days in American history.
In Bin Laden's case, justice has now been done, but there is still a long way to go in the world fight against terrorism.
Exactly!! And if they didn't know, what the heck is Nussbaum doing for them?? They've only been a director short for three weeks now.....jeez.
Maybe they can avert delisting by finding a replacement, who knows? Since nobody hear knows the rules (including me), how do we know what to expect next? Where is the 8K for the new CFO (I'm guessing there is no new CFO, so no 8K)? All we have done here since the halt is speculate on and on and on.
At this point, I don't care if there is an underlying business, I don't care who they hire, I don't care if they do a forensic, etc. If they have any news that is positive for longs that they can release prior to the halt being lifted, that would be good - I don't expect that since they haven't done anything positive for us (at least publicly) since the halt began.
Frankly all I care about is staying glued to my Fidelity account so that once it starts trading I can bail at the highest price possible and get the h*** out whether that is next week, next month, whatever.........but that's just me. Best of luck to everyone else no matter what course of action you choose.
I knew someone would say that....my answer would be that they would have likely headed in that direction already and not bothered with all of the compliance related stuff......but who knows Andrew?
Ohhhhh that's cold......don't think you're making too many friends with the attorneys among us with that comment Dipstick :)
If in fact they did hire a CFO, it would be nice to see the 8K filed if they are required to do so. Otherwise, I am going to assume there is no CFO.......
I'm not sure about the first line but the rest would seem like a reasonable enough description of where I think we are in the process and what might be going on behind the scenes. The only thing I would add to the "compliance" discussion is that whatever timeline CCME proposes to get in compliance would need to be acceptable to the SEC/Nasdaq.....either that, or a deadline will be provided to CCME that they will need to meet.
CCME/Rato - It's possible that there were some odd shares out there that were borrowed but never sold short. They could have been returned to the broker to avoid paying the excessive borrow interest......
I actually expected my post responding to Sykes to be deleted but there was no way he was going to get away with posting his BS here. Glad at least that someone had the common sense to delete his posts along with my response.
I would expect this post to be deleted as well since it is "off topic".....whatever.
Same thing happened in both my Fidelity accounts. I may give them a call later if it isn't fixed by later this afternoon.....
Since there is an 8K filed that documents that the company did, indeed, appeal the suspension, I would think that the wording "still suspended" at the end of the SEC letter should read "still halted"....in the interest of accuracy.
Marty - good post and thanks. In CCME's case, I'm still struggling with the fact that it took so long for the news to filter out that DTT was having a problem with cash confirmation and related issues particularly given that cash is the foundation for the rest of the audit.
Maybe there were, in fact, issues that were identified early, but to release that news less than a week before the 10-K was expected is just mind boggling to me. I would think they should have "smelled a rat" very early on, perhaps as early as late last year if they had begun some of their work that early.......
Gary - any thoughts on which China companies he IS bullish on for a turnaround? Thanks.
News item in Media Coverage section of CCME's website today. Not sure what the hell it means but thought I would post it here anyway.....
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/news/media_content.php?evt=m20110419
Much too early to tell. Simply too much remains unknown at this point to speculate......
"If his ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible he would want to be able to have his stock be valued as high as possible". .......and accumulate as many shares as he can at the lowest possible cost via a tender offer.
Michael - agree with everything you said here especially the part about people not likely tendering at $5 (but establishing a floor), forcing shorts to cover higher and driving the price higher as they do.....you've convinced me - so I guess I would support a letter if the minimum tender offer was $5 (or higher).
-Chuck
Stick - I don't have a good answer for you other than thinking the letter is unnecessary and won't accomplish much. My point is that telling the company that you are "willing" to sell your shares as low as $2 gives Cheng and shorts a very easy out.......
If it's going to say $2-$5, why bother? The market will likely get to those numbers on its own at some point. I'll take my chances by playing the market action after it opens......
TF - but wouldn't longs and funds be selling their shares to the company, thus limiting the number of available shares for shorts to cover? Seems the strategy wouldn't change if you're long - hang on as available shares diminish as a aresult of the tender and wait until the shortage drives the pps up?
BTW, I agree with you about the $2-$5 offer. It establishes too low of a floor for trading. A tender at $8-$10 would be better
If Jacky Lam had no access, neither would this guy/gal......
From NASDAQ's listing rules:
5815. Review of Staff Determinations by Hearings Panel
When a Company receives a Staff Delisting Determination or a Public Reprimand Letter issued by the Listing Qualifications Department, or when its application for initial listing is denied, it may request in writing that the Hearings Panel review the matter in a written or an oral hearing. This section sets forth the procedures for requesting a hearing before a Hearings Panel, describes the Hearings Panel and the possible outcomes of a hearing, and sets forth Hearings Panel procedures.
(a) Procedures for Requesting and Preparing for a Hearing
(1) Timely Request Stays Delisting
(A) A Company may, within seven calendar days of the date of the Staff Delisting Determination notification, Public Reprimand Letter, or denial of a listing application, request a written or oral hearing before a Hearings Panel to review the Staff Delisting Determination. Subject to the limitation in paragraph (B) below, a timely request for a hearing will stay the suspension and delisting action pending the issuance of a written Panel Decision. Requests for hearings should be submitted in writing to the Hearings Department.
(B) A request for a hearing shall ordinarily stay the delisting action pending the issuance of a Panel Decision. However, if the Staff Delisting Determination relates to deficiencies from the standards of Rule 5250(c)(1) or (2), which require a Company to timely file its periodic reports with the Commission, the delisting action will only be stayed for 15 calendar days from the deadline to request a hearing unless the Company specifically requests and the Hearings Panel grants a further stay. A request for a further stay must include an explanation of why such a stay would be appropriate and should be included in the Company's request for a hearing. Based on that submission and any recommendation provided by Staff, the Hearings Panel will determine whether to grant the Company a further stay. In determining whether to grant the stay, the Hearings Panel will consider the Company's specific circumstances, including the likelihood that the filing can be made within any exception period that could subsequently be granted, the Company's past compliance history, the reasons for the late filing, corporate events that may occur within the exception period, the Company's general financial status, and the Company's disclosures to the market. The Hearings Panel will notify the Company of its conclusion as soon as is practicable, but in no event more than 15 calendar days following the deadline to request the hearing. In the event the Hearings Panel determines not to grant the Company a stay, the Company's securities will be immediately suspended and will remain suspended unless the Panel Decision issued after the hearing determines to reinstate the securities.
Question: see the language related to 15 days - does this rule mean that CCME could begin to trade on 4/23 (if a further stay has not been granted as a result of the appeal filing)? Thoughts??
Gunnar - That would be tomorrow, no? I think that was what FHM was saying.........
Haha - yup, I'm flipping back and forth between the Rangers/Caps and Yankees/Orioles game. I tell you, that Ovetchkin is good!
Good catch but we still don't know squat. Want some more speculation? OK:
It is entirely possible that they are close to hiring a forensic auditor/CFO/whatever.......and the person/people they want to hire want the Board to look different. This guy's resignation is one of the conditions of the new people........or a recommendation as a result of forensic work already in progress.
Maybe Nasdaq said "this guy needs to go if you expect us to have any faith in the plan you submit to us to maintain your listing and any future work that you intend to do to rectify the situation."
If he is, in fact, not "independent", I am actually surprised that he didn't leave when everyone else did - as chairman of the Audit Committee, he is as responsible as anyone else for all that has happened (except for Cheng, of course). For him to stay creates the perception that needed work yet to be done would not be reliable....in the long run (whatever that is), his departure can be spun as a positive.