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.
Most probably no release by the company but by DTT if halt lifted.
I agree with you that their silence is ominous. Totally.
When sued for fraud if the client says something negative it hurts the case.
If they say something positive which turns out not to be true it hurts the case.
So the lawyers usually advise no statements
Well all companies communicate until they are sued.
Sorry, that is their standard procedure in these cases
The lawyers defending the fraud cases will not allow company statements
I believe that you are going to find that he said exactly what the lawyers told him to say.
Mike
I agree that the halt should continue.
But if you plan to send the list of us halters to the company there is another aspect in this that must be addressed.
CCME officers and directors have a number of lawsuits against them now. They turned these claims over to their insurance company and the insurance company hired lawyers to defend them.
Looking at worst case scenario, while hoping none the less for good news, let's assume that now the auditor found something negative.
What they found requires restatement/ revision to past filings /reports.
The auditor wants to report this to the SEC, immediately.
The auditor wants to do this, in part, so that the auditor is not a co-defendant in any suits filed by investors who bought after the auditor discovered the problem. This would happen unless they report it immediately.
The company disagrees with what the auditor wishes to report.
To stop the auditor from reporting CCME requested a halt.
This took the need to report immediately off the auditor's back because no one can buy the stock during a halt.
So now there are discussions between the CCME officers and the auditor over what must be stated in the report.
We must urge Lam to have a complete and thorough explanation IN THE AUDITOR'S REPORT of whatever it is, mitigating it as much as possible but of course truthfully.
The reason for this is--when the halt is lifted and the auditor files, Lam and CCME officers will probably, 90% probability, be advised by the insurance company retained lawyers to say nothing, not a word. They are looking out for the CCME officers/directors and the insurance company's money, not us.
So the fate of our shares will ride on the auditors statement.
In RINO, and I apologize in advance for mentioning it, the primary problem cited by MW was that "many" contracts the company claimed did not exist. We posters and analysts called around and found that of 22 contracts, 20 existed, only 2 did not. Of the 2 the largest represented only 1.2% of company revenues. So it appeared not to be a problem, a tempest in a teapot--BUT after the halt when the auditor disclosed that there was a problem but without the details and the company officers said nothing, no doubt on counsel's advice, so the public/investors/traders never heard that the problem was very small. The halt was lifted and disaster ensued.
So, again, we must tell Lam that he must seek a very careful complete, thorough explanation of any problem, no matter how small it may be, in the auditors report.
GLTA
Well many here who have pooled DD seem to think it is worth $40
so no board of directors would accept $23--there would be a whole new set of lawsuits.
A buyout and the conversation Ms Ping related do not match up.
If it were a buyout offer the company would have disclosed that right after the halt.
That is interesting
In RINO a married couple owns 72% of the shares and the company had no debt.
I thought they would take advantage of a big drop in the price to buy everyone else out.
But did not happen.
No, that the company requested the halt means nothing either way--RINO requested its halt and then never said another word
Quite surprised --Why first thing on Monday morning?
Yes and I said there should be a halt when the first attack occurred--the second attack cost a lot of people a lot of money that was permanently lost.
I blame their counsel as most such lawyers know squat about PR and the effects of these attacks and give bad advice--and I am a trial lawyer myself
Anyway, hope this turns out ok.
Yes a company halt--the last one I saw cost me a fortune--but I do not think this one will
No the company can halt for weeks without SEC stepping in or acting.
I do not think that is the case here, I expect a reopen today, but legally that is the answer
Did Citron ever put out their second, promised, attack?
There are plenty of people watching and trading this stock.
If it takes off there will be a lot of momentum traders pushing it higher.
I am in at 3.8 and planning to hold
His batting average is almost .900
OK --No it is definitely not a short yet
Sykes does a lot of shorting but he relates this is a long
Are you anticipating it will go to 3?
i anticipate that it will rise to 5 tomorrow or Wednesday
and 6 in the not too distant future
if it stalls at 6 my intention is to sell 2/3
but hold 1/3 for awhile
Sykes bought it Friday near end of the day, 8000 shares with target of mid 4's--he holds stock only briefly --usually one day or less --but often his picks keep going
Looks good--this is on Tim Sykes board--Zacks downgraded it today but he says ignore that, that it is tied to Zynga--and looks good --if keeps rising lots of buyers there are watching--I have some --$5 would be great
Northland target $5.25--
There has been analyst report calling another China stock a fraud but do not know stock name
As i recall RINO had 22 companies identified as customers from advertising and SEC filings, investor presentations and MW said ""many of these do not have contracts with RINO""
But I believe the energized long posters susequently found 20 of the 22 and the others were former customers
It appeared that MW had contacted non-customer companies with the same or similar name --apparently easy to do either willfully, accidently or negligently in China--and of course those companies said there were no contracts
The attack was 90 days ago this week, stock is under 3, was 17-18 when attack occurred
As I recall, yes, plenty including Bank of America Securities, Morgan Stanley, UBS Global, at least 10 mutual funds
Had recently sold 100 million in stock and had no debt
I suspect RINO may be 90% ok in the end
I hope you are totally right and we will know in March --I have concluded that the current environment--the speed of news through the internet, people handling their own accounts, being able to sell in an instant, the effect of the word ""fraud" , especially after Madoff, the inability of these companies through language, their customs, to promptly and convincingly respond--all of these factors are, in the end tough to weather in these attacks.
Many posters here keep referring to the March filing.
I think CCME is a totally legitimate company and there is no more informed board than this one in my experience. But I feel constrained to comment on the effect of the March filing.
I was just about to purchase ONP during the week it was attacked by MW. Had just put it on a watch list. Despite an immediate vigorous response of ONP leadership, an independent audit, fine SEC report filings, all the things posters here wish CCME will do--all have failed to bring that stock back from a 50% drop.
In RINO MW attacked and the stock dropped roughly 40%, RINO filed a perfectly normal SEC filing within days and I bought. The SEC filing had virtually no effect in lifting the stock. A few days later RINO admitted there were some contract problems and I and many others were wiped out.
And I lost 2/3 of my shares in CCME when it dropped after MW.
The point is the great SEC filing coming up may not have the effect many here are counting on. I hope it does but I for one am not counting on it, after the seeing the couse of events in ONP and RINO.
I have been trading stocks over 30 years. I have concluded that there is no effective defense against these attacks on Chinese stocks, at least not at this time. Those who are going to hang tight that is fine I hope we win. But people who own this stock on margin are playing with fire because we know another attack is coming from Citron. I suspect that these people intend to knock this stock down much more.
I realize some will be critical of this post and that is their right. I feel now I should have said more and louder after the Citron report about the halt option when I read so many posts here that shrugged off that attack as of little substance that would have little effect.
GLTA
No, sorry
Check your PM box
I do not know if you are focusing only on January pump data but overall the pumping began in June, was done through at least 9 newsletters and cost at least $1.5 million.
Palm
How did you learn the number of Troy Metz shares?
Tim
Do you know when earnings are on PLPE?
And congrats on your 2011 picks, hope it continues as I am right with you
I agree with your post 100%
Thank heavens it is only the Chinese stocks that are vulnerable to the MW's or one could not buy stocks
BUT
For 2 years I followed a tire co stock closely--one month an analyst would downgrade and list all the problems--it would drop $2--a month later another analyst would upgrade it and list a host of reasons why--it would climb $2
happened over and over
I really think such analysts are acting in concert
So maybe this does occur to non chinese stocks in another format
To the person looking to buy--I think I would wait for Citron 2 then buy on that dip
or
Write a nasty attack yourself, put it on Seeking Alpha and buy the dip you created--
Over 3 mil volume first hour--pretty impressive
RINO and ONP did not have respected auditors or key US investors at the time they were attacked and CCME does--those advantages may be key if pointed out strongly
It is amazing that he was there that same day and these 2 goofs are his college classmates
He could be a very effective impeacher if he speaks well, and makes an impressive appearance
Heres a guy who knows them well and after they cry fraud he buys shares in the ""accused"" company--beautiful
It will take third parties to step up strongly
Deloitte and Global Hunter and the like--
company prs will not do it unless they are money pr's '
like dividends, share buybacks or extremely factual
physical ""evidence""'pr's
Apparently Global has already stepped up
along with impeachment of Citron and Muddy
like the Lett photo and criminal record
hopefully they have hired a capable PR firm
and a well-known lawyer or public figure with
credibility to speak forcefully and firmly
shame General Petraeus is not available
this is muddy waters mo
mix up subsidiaries and companies with similar names
unfortunately there r a zillion subs and companies with similar names in china
I understand your first 4 points
first 3 doable, 4 probably not
but on 5 --how would that protect us?