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.
Interesting questions. I still think the main question is where is the financing coming from and when. gl garrad hassan is new.
http://www.gl-garradhassan.com/en/index.php
How do we know sse owns the land?
#2. Scary version? or maybe just punctuation. I don't know.
My take. At least there is movement, and more news for us. I suppose the partnership is still good until we hear otherwise. Which means partnership agreements are still in place until we hear otherwise. So SPG is there, and hopefully APWR is still exclusive supplier. btw, no change to the faa filings by sse?
Maybe too much is being made of this item. Maybe we can look at it as just news of movement until we hear otherwise.
Ha Ha, are we to believe that it
just found the information posted in the last day? No, it
had it all along, and is just posting it now as part of a
strategy to mislead. Still seems as though they are getting more
desperate. Hey, anyone notice how quiet its been on the oversight regulatory front? Maybe some agreement is in the works.
Also, the timeline for the sse development makes sense because they need the crez lines to be in place. and, just a side note, but I thought a turbine had to be connected to the grid in order to qualify for the ptc, not just constructed. good luck.
I will leave it to the moderators to decide who is littering this board, and for what reasons. How old is that link? Just wanted to see if the same yahoo tactics would be tried here.
What is a china shell? what are some of the other china shells you are comparing apwr to?
Thought so... If that's what you think, then why would you continue to hold??
Sounds like more one sided deceptive arguments. Can you think of any positive reasons to buy/hold ????
$5 price would mean a 225 million market cap. and $15 price would mean a 675 million market cap. Right now market cap is about the same as the settlement, so who knows. But I would ignore yahoo finance numbers.
We Need A Fly On The Wall.....
8:30 a.m.
3. MDL 11-2302-GW(CWx) In re: A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd Securities
Litigation
STATUS CONFERENCE
Laurence M. Rosen 213-785-2610 Benjamin M. Crosson 650-493-9300
Christopher B. Hayes 310-461-1426 Boris Feldman
Avi N. Wagner 310-491-7949 Cynthia A. Dy 650-493-9300
Joy A. Kruse 415-956-1000 x3336 Bret F. Meich 775-322-7400
Lionel Z. Glancy 310-201-9150 Rebecca M. Lamberth 404-253-6900
Michael M. Goldberg
Darren J. Robbins 619-231-1058
David C. Walton
Brian O. O’Mara 619-231-1058
Erik W. Luedeke
From Today's Schedule.....
I think thats a specious argument. By that logic, why would they pursue the case in the first place. Seems like anyone who would put forth such an argument is trying to mislead. More telling is what is on page 14, i think, section 3. 'Lead Counsel believes that the amount of the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, given the possibility that Lead Plaintiff might not prevail at trial and the substantial risk that, even if Lead Plaintiff were to prevail at trial and on any subsequent appeals, a process that might take years, it would be difficult or impossible to collect any judgment against Defendants. And even if Lead Plaintiff were to prevail and were able to collect a judgment, any damages awarded might be much smaller than those that Lead Plaintiff seeks.' Also, see 3.a 'The weight of Defendants’ arguments is underscored by the Court’s granting of Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint.' I'm just saying that I got a completely different impression from reading the document.
Thanks for the post. Reading now.....
Judge Wu's Courtroom Schedule is up.
8:30 a.m.
9. MDL 11-2302-GW(CWx) In re: A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd Securities
Litigation
LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
(filed 12/07/12)
Laurence M. Rosen 213-785-2610 Benjamin M. Crosson 650-493-9300
Christopher B. Hayes 310-461-1426 Boris Feldman
Avi N. Wagner 310-491-7949 Cynthia A. Dy 650-493-9300
Joy A. Kruse 415-956-1000 x3336 Bret F. Meich 775-322-7400
Lionel Z. Glancy 310-201-9150 Rebecca M Lamberth 404-253-6900
Michael M. Goldberg
Darren J. Robbins 619-231-1058
David C. Walton
Brian O. O’Mara 619-231-1058
Erik W. Luedeke
so, the motion for this settlement was filed by the plaintiffs.
The last four lawyers are from robbins,geller, rudman and dowd.
they filed a class action against apwr between august, 2009 and June 2011.
The other guy is from glancy,binkow & goldberg. they filed a class action against apwr for period between march 2008 and june 2011. Does this mean no restatement of 2008, and 2009 financials and no barrier to release of 2010, and end of quiet period?
Hey, the number is 441,491, not 444,491. Down about 3200. probably 100 shares at a time. Also, isn't the settlement approval date 1/7/13? Still can't download it. oh, well.
Looks like APWR and its directors are insured by Catlin syndicate 2003 at Lloyds. I still can't download the stipulation of settlement (can anyone cut and paste?), but would like to get more info. Don't know how much of the 3.5mm APWR would pay. Got snipet I think from cached page that was on Lieff Cabraser's website.
Ok, I just keep the last sale screen open at TD. It gives the same info.
At least the issue is getting more and more attention.
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/2012_12_18_china_us_audit.pdf
I wouldn't call it a showdown though.
btw, is excency a word?
Hi E: To understand the relationship between cielo and spinning star, you have to search for Walt Hornaday; the President of Cielo wind. He also founded Texas Wind Power, which I think, has appeared in the texas land records of SSE. I can't remember where I saw it, but I recall he is one of the principals of US-reg. Also, in SSE's early days, I think they shared offices with Cielo, I think. That's why when doing a search for spinning star in Austin, they come up with Cielo's address. Or, maybe they were just in the same building but with different suite numbers.
Btw, is that a picture of APWR blades at the houston port in this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/an-expiring-tax-credit-threatens-the-texas-wind-power-industry.html?_r=0
They look like the blades spinning in that other apowerwind web site.
typed in spinning star
during a search in upton county land records. looks like there's been some recent activity. 23 records now.
https://www.texaslandrecords.com/txlr/TxlrApp/index.jsp
yes, odd indeed. I have a few theories about it but nothing concrete. What I do know is that last week, when I got tired of waiting for a fill and switched my order to csti, I was told that I was in line. And, that csti does not trade through orders, but knight does.
Question: Why punish a company with deregistration when auditor had access to the financial information and is between a rock and a hard place (The SEC request for info. and the Chinese threat of imprisonment).
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/weblog/sec-commissioner-calls-for.html
'It's no secret that the SEC has been investigating accounting irregularities at dozens of China-based companies that are publicly traded in the United States.'
'If these firms are unable or unwilling to comply with U.S. law, the question to ask is whether the companies they audit should be allowed to trade in the U.S. securities markets?'
If firms that have performed an audit refuse to cooperate, how can investors rely on that auditors' work? How can companies find other auditors at additional expense to repeat the audit, or do future audits. A company's best chance is to provide audited financials. Without willing auditors there is nothing a company can do. So why should they be punished with deregistration because of an impasse not of their making? How does this help investors? Investors should be allowed to buy and sell throughout the whole saga with access to any known facts by regulators. Not used as fodder, or bargaining chips by regulators trying to push and pull the audit firms.
'This is a question that must be answered with the needs of investors in mind – both to protect investors and to promote capital formation. Uncertainty regarding audited financial statements hurts investor confidence in the securities of all issuers whose operations are based in places opaque to regulatory oversight.'
You need to have your broker call down to the trading floor and place the trade directly with the market maker; either knight-yuck, or collin stewart last time i checked (last week).
THAT'S IT ??? That's basically lawyers fees so everybody can cut the bs and move on. Once again, the lack of bad news is actually good news. That is a large amount of risk eliminated from the equation. Sooo back to waiting for the financials. Also, I really wouldn't be surprised to see SSE ECIC wind farm financing secured by SSE assets in the near future. Also, this may be a wild prediction, but the same thing could be in the works in a country south of the border. Maybe Sinosure or CDB providing the financing with the stipulation that Chinese turbines by for example Shenyang Power Group power the Latin American wind farm.
says file damaged. can't download. probably confidentiality agreement or something.
Stipulation of Settlement available to download. Always takes me forever to download. Usually have to wait until after hours. Will post some info if I get it downloaded before anyone else posts here.
CSRC's Tong Daochi is positive on accounting oversight cooperation.
'The difficulty is there are some kind of legal issues we need to handle both in China and in other jurisdictions. There are domestic laws and regulations sometimes may have differences interpretations, so we need to solve some of the issues then go through certain procedures before we can deliver the audit papers.
We have engaged with the SEC, SFC, and PCAOB on audit working papers and we are making progress and I think we should be able to work out a way to get them out.'
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/weblog/tong-daochi-on-audit-cooper.html
Maybe when all is said and done, both country's regulatory bodies will have made some adjustments to their regulations to both acknowledge, and smooth out cultural differences influencing procedures. Also, hard stances could be softened as part of the process of addressing overlaps and/or gaps in understanding of the generally accepted rules not clearly defined beforehand. Just my guessing out loud. Hopefully all parties will get on the same page going forward with decreasing tolerance for deviation, while working out fair solutions to existing rules with different interpretations not as yet clearly defined.
Possible progress on accounting oversight front with draft proposal given to China officials last week regarding joint inspections. Maybe we missed this blurb.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/pcaob-china-idUSL1E8N4BW720121205
China not honoring its agreements.
Is China going to get a reputation for not honoring its agreements when it doesn't suit them? The PCAOB is responsible for ensuring the quality of audits of companies listed on US exchanges, not Chinese exchanges. China knew the rules when they began listing on US exchanges because it was advantageous.
Should companies listed on Chinese exchanges with operations abroad be barred from producing audit work papers involving their US business activities for example, because of "state secrets"?
What kind of business could a company be involved in on foreign soil involving state secrets? Secret recipes? Surely all of its transactions would be monitored by the host governments. Now when the company, and the host country have the same nationality, are we to believe the company was allowed to export state secrets without host country knowledge? With no punishments? Unless both were complicit.
How could any agreement with such a country be entered into or relied upon in the future? I don't think it will come to this, but China's honor may be at risk because of a few minor accounting disagreements. Why not honor current and past rules, and make adjustments going forward? Anything else may create an unfavorable impression enduring far into the future, with much greater consequences than a few accounting agreements.
There are a couple of articles about non progress on the accounting oversight stuff. Looks like in an effort to "protect" investors, things are moving closer to delisting of US listed companies and deregistering of accounting firms. Naturally the so called financial media is largely ignoring this whole issue involving the SEC, PCAOB, Multinationals, China, its US listed companies, its regulators etc. The fiscal cliff is the news 24/7. It bedazzles the mind. Anyhoo, i'm posting one of the articles from the china accounting site.
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/weblog/mncs-in-china-and-pcaob.html
Interesting. I don't know how you find those job postings on chinese web sites. Nice to read though.
Funny Dingo. I had noticed the same thing. I thought about mentioning the shanghai closure but saw this earlier. read the overview. was a little confusing.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6491022
and the company prez has patents. what do you make of 'em.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/inventor/ino-jp-5/
Sooooo, one question partially answered?
The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or a motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become final as to that party.
One of these things must have occurred. Geez, this is complicated. Hey E., Dingo, Gig, Eco
Still more questions than answers eh? Now we're waiting to see if it trades on Monday??
What happened to my post? You guys had a problem with it???
2.5's go to TX, and 2.7's go to China
Non progress in China. I only post this because I think somehow these issues and APWR's problems are related. Anyone owning stock in a US listed China company should at least be aware of the ongoing regulatory stuff IMO. But what a mess.
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/weblog/pcaob-progress-in-china.html
Evolving, no new info about document access.
I did notice another shark was added to the defendant side of the status conference for today. Rebecca Lamberth. My search says she is with an Atlanta firm and a large part of her practice deals with settlements. Maybe SEC deadline is forcing APWR to pursue settlement?
yes Gig I know about the turbines at the port. I confirmed those some time ago. Also, we know from the last financials about the other 10 turbines delivered to the two wind farms in China. But seriously, now MSCM is saying the forensic audit was to find those turbines? What I was suggesting is that, if we can find them why can't the auditor. Again, I still don't get any feeling that APWR has done anything fraudulent. Just my impression.
Also, note that CAGC got a cease and desist. End of message. But APWR is in this situation until they file, which then re registers the securities. So, nothing has been found by investigation to warrant cease and desist, or charges or anything. Just wish they would start to file, but maybe there are class action developments close at hand. Also, I suspect the 2010's were completed and are being held pending the class action. who knows.
It says a status conference is scheduled for today at 8:30.
You can go to www cacd uscourts.gov and get daily calendar and check judge Wu's schedule.
here we go
http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/MasterCal.nsf/17c28a028ce48ceb882570540053b738/ab95dd945560ced588257aaf006bca30?OpenDocument
MDL 11-2302-GW(CWx) In re: A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd Securities
Litigation
STATUS CONFERENCE
Laurence M. Rosen 213-785-2610 Benjamin M. Crosson 650-493-9300
Christopher B. Hayes 310-461-1426 Boris Feldman
Avi N. Wagner 310-491-7949 Cynthia A. Dy 650-493-9300
Joy A. Kruse 415-956-1000 x 3336 Bret F. Meich 775-322-7400
Lionel Z. Glancy 310-201-9150 Rebecca M Lamberth 404-253-6900
Maybe true Dingo.
'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision no later than 120 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice [17 C.F.R. § 201.360(a)(2)].'
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-67338.pdf
They waited the whole 120 days to dot those i's.
I've never seen a drawn out situation like this, ever.
The 21 days is just until the decision to revoke registration becomes final. They can re-register the securities at any time by filing the 20-F if I read correctly. Still I wish they would get off their ____. Are the missing turbines that were brought up, the ones at the Houston port? First i've heard of missing turbines.