In researching the Deer lawsuit i found that the case against Geo :

They can't escape this time as the suite was filed in Pennsylvania where Geo is registered. I also noted that Geo has removed all references to Longwei on their website, comments, blogs etc.. why???

Here is a copy of the Sino Clean lawsuit. I can see why this one failed. They don't really rebut the allegations , they just say they are false and defamatory.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=tirVQewp3WvzBOnYdc3Bag==&system=prod

In reviewing the Silvercorp case and why it was dismissed by judge Edmead, what us interesting is that the ruling is constraint to the statements made. It is not a blanket allowance of defamatory statements that can be proven in a court. Therefore in this case the statements that Geo made in their article and every comment they made in the blogs and on their site will be admitted into evidence. That will be the criteria for determining the validity of Longwei's case.



Some info on Jon Carnes aka (Alfred Little)

http://www.nyggroup.com/library/IPOresearch.pdf


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/short-seller-drops-muddy-waters-model-for-sec.html

Also Deer shut down their factories. Which are not refuted. I have not seen any verification that Longwei does not have a viable business. Why have the auditors now almost 4 months later not stepped down and said , we resign there is no business here? Why hasn't Toups resigned, why does the company bother to even file a suit against Geo et al if they have no viable business? Yes I realize both Deer and Sino Clean filed and were proven to be fraudulent but so did Silvercorp and Olam, they also filed and they are not frauds. It remains to be seen which way this goes.

The letter h in the symbol refers to delinquency and deficiency. If they address these issues they can apply for a re-listing:

Just found this also:

Here are their lawyers:

http://www.srff.com/


Securities Lawyers
Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP is a specialized boutique law firm that provides
Experienced, professional representation for all matters involving the securities industry, as well
as general corporate and litigation matters. Our clients include private and public corporations
(from start-ups to NYSE-listed companies), broker-dealers, investment advisors,
individual corporate investors, partnerships and other entities. We also advise institutional
investors or transactions involving complex securities law considerations. SRFF regularly advises clients regarding corporate and commercial transactions, including public offerings, reverse mergers, private investments in public equity (PIPEs), registered direct offerings, private placements, as well as mergers and acquisitions, and general commercial and securities litigation. We are recognized nationally for innovation, entrepreneurship and legal excellence in public company representations.

Here is the delsiting of Deer shares by Nasdaq:

Here is the Longwei delsiting by NYSE MKT:

Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited LPH Company does not meet Exchange Listing Standards 03/22/13 04/02/13

There is no allegation of lying or misleading information, only deficiencies in auditors and in providing timely financial information. Not the same thing.

Its one thing for a company to be fraudulent but quite another for a company to be deficient yet attacked to the same degree using front-running tactics and making general accusations that distort the facts. In reading an article on Silvercorp metal that Cairns attacked using the same tactics, the Forbes writer concluded that 70% of what Cairnes said was "fluff". His conclusion was that the grades of the ore were inflated. Is that fraud as Cairnes alleged? The intent was to destroy the company and its shareholders with it. It did not work but has marred the reputation obviously. How is inflating ore grades any different that a a tech company giving guidance on sales that turn out to be highly inflated and then providing excuses as to why they were? Somewhat like what Oracle recently did and then blames their sales staff for dropping the ball. Can you imagine a hit piece on a tech company using the same metrics it would never happen yet the analogy is there.

Ultimately if Longwei is proven to be a fraudulent organization I will be the first to congratulate Geo/Cairnes. If however they are proven to be deficient in their public information but otherwise run a legitimate business like Silvercorp is this acceptable? Are the rights of freedom of speech more valuable that the individual investor who will/has lost substantial amounts of money here? These are questions each person should ask themselves. I am not taking sides here. If Longwei proves a viable business then GEO/Cairnes should be punished to the full extent of the law, but will they? If they are proven to be a fraudulent company the individuals to the extent they can be should be prosecuted fully.

This is the company's response on regaining compliance:

So the question is when does this company have their annual meeting? Once that is know then the clock ticks on the above time-frames

I understand what you are saying however, every person making statement in their defamation requires an affidavit to be signed, the parties are deposed and are legally bound by what they claim. No lawyer would file a suit without evidence of each point being crystal clear. There is no middle truth as you say, it's either true or it is isn't. I am basing my opinion on the integrity of the lawyers not the company. Also every case is different and can't really be compared other than on the surface. Who knows where the price goes but these are strong allegations and just because other lawsuits have not been proven does not mean this one won't. These are serious charges the company is alleging against Cairnes and Geo, they better be right in what they said.

Interesting, did you read the entire defamation lawsuit? How do you know what their future plans are regarding the tender offers. Have they not asserted that the allegations are false by launching the suit under the penalty of perjury?

Just looking at the allegations about the trucks fueling. Geo says one truck viewed on their videos, which are dark, grainy and compressed as opposed to a real-time view from several cameras with date/time visible showing 22 trucks fuelling in 2 days. Huge discrepancy here. You don't think it is possible that there is a strong profit motive here on behalf of Geo/Cairnes to fudge the data? I read a review of one of Cainres other attacks on Silvercorp metals on Barrons and the author concluded that 70% of the information was b/s. Who is to says what percentage of this Geo article is also b/s, could 90%

Longwei says that they derive "substantial revenues through drop shipments of fuel directly to is customers from suppliers not correlated to the activity at its facilities. Did the Geo article even discuss this , if so I did not see it.

I don't understand what you mean by 2?

Read the conclusion and what Longweit is asking of the courts. If successful they have many options available. Not saying they will be however . This is the first real answer to the Geo article and every point is answered.

True, what got them on the greys was their inability to file their audited financial data and not getting two independent board members. That is a chicken and egg problem. They could not attract two people until their investigation was completed which it sounds like it is but not in time to avoid this.

Sounds like they have that now so it will be interesting to see if they file audited data?

No idea whether they will win or not because the US allows people to hide behind first amendment rights while they lie and cheat "honest" investors out of their money. Read the defamation lawsuit, every single item that the Geo article attacked Longwei on is addressed.

You can find it on the Longwei website. In reading it all the allegations are countered. What I found interesting is that the suit links Jon Cairnes(Alfredlittle.com) with Geo. Cairnes is hiding in Vancouver and claims to be a whistleblower which he is not. Longwei has six charges against the group including racketeering charges or (RICO) statutes. I am sure that Longwei is/has done an external audit which they will present in court. Regarding the truck counts and how they generate revenues, it is stated that most of the fuel is directly sent to the users and does not come from the fueling stations. Also the deal with Cai and the supposed inappropriate investment, as I suspected under Chinese law this is an arms length investment that has nothing to do with Longwei therefore is not reportable to the SEC. It's all there, everything that the company claims will be deposed and is punishable under the perjury laws so this is a legal and binding document that will land Toups and Cai in jail if proven false.

Have a read let me know your thoughts

thanks

If anyone has shares in this you should read the defamation lawsuit against GEO ,Seeking Alpha and Jon Carnes...the lawsuit is for a minimum of $242 million dollars plus legal fees, they are also alleged to be involved in RICO claims, wire and mail fraud. These are some serious allegations.

Unlike you there are/were many holders of VRNG who have been in this for quite a while. Many have become disillusioned with the time this process has taken, November 6 jury verdict and then 4 months of post-trial motions. Some have sold as a result. Also because the company is not at the stage where they can look in another direction there is a news vacuum. All that plus human psychology and a 15 million share short position , shake it up and this is what you get. Rulings by the judge whenever that is will change the dynamics. That's my take.

Buying back shares is not a good use of their cash in my opinion. The reason is that there are many law suits to come and lawsuits are expensive. I would love to agree with you that they should buy back shares but it would not be the best option. The reason for their canned cc could be that they do not want to slip on any confidential discussions going on is my guess. You will usually find the free and easy , shoot the breeze conference calls are from companies not doing anything worthwhile. These serious professional type calls are usually doing something major behind the scenes. I have listened to thousand of calls over the years and this is my observation. I can tell you are frustrated as am I but I feel much better listening to management than just watching the daily drift. I know some people will sell because they are disappointed that is their choice. Every sale has a buyer attached to it.

Couple of points. First where do you get that shorts win 80% of the time. If this was true then everyone should short right! The real numbers are more like 50/50. Lots of shorts have been crushed in the rally since the new year. Many people seem to think that shorts have some special information or knowledge that isn't public. None of that is true, look at Netflix and BBRY to name a few, huge short positions and they continue to go up. Anyway is doesn't matter whether the company says the decisions are due or not, they will come when they come. One thing I do know is that it is highly unlikely that there are no decision a month from now. I think much sooner however is more likely.

Here is a story from Forbes about how hard it is to make money shorting stocks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2013/01/10/death-of-the-hedge-fund-short-seller/

Some people still think it will be months before we get a ruling. Most have been saying any day now for a while, the company simply confirms that any day now is correct. Those wanting to short this now are foolish and are playing with fire.

Here is the language from the 10Q filing. I read this as all the motions are ripe for judicial determination (rulings) save one.

Great recap.

I just want to clarify one point and add some information from the 10 Q. The comment about the motions being fully briefed is as of today not Feb 15 I believe.

From 10Q filed