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.
Very nice Maj!
Well CCME and ZAGG have even more in common-- Don't both have contracts with AAPL or its distributer? ;)
Chris:
It goes without saying that any warranty on the statements made in my message compiling several messages about Piper's representation expires as of the date of each respective message having been posted. That said, you are right that if it involves CCME, speculation is the rule.
-Andrew
I wouldn't put to much stock in what someone with a vested interest in FUD writes on YMB, even if it's about theories related to a property owner's compensation in New York... Plainly this fellow or his comrades has/have yet to cover.
Here are confirmations of direct CCME/Audit Committee of the Board of Directors representation by DLA Piper (in no particular order):
1--- http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64286015
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:30:13 PM
Well, I know DLA Piper is still working with CCME as a client as of a few days ago (and PWC is still engaged). I called them and spoke to the lawyer in charge of the account to confirm. As expected, of course, the lawyer would not say anything specific -- But he was able to confirm CCME is a client.
Happy now? Not that hard to verify these things :).
Your certainly correct in us not knowing the exact ROLE that DLA-Piper and PWC are playing -- But let us not question the fact that they are currently involved.
-Fernando
Disclosure: I have no position in CCME at this time.
2--- http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64084675
Thursday, June 09, 2011 4:42:57 PM
"When I spoke with a DLA Piper lawyer handling the CCME matter to confirm the authenticity of the original announcement of DLA Piper being retained, at that time the attorney was presumably authorized to confirm the existence of the attorney-client relationship (which had proximately to then been broadcast over the newswire).
I have not since then contacted DLA Piper to confirm the continuity of the representation.
2) That said, I have no reason to believe DLA Piper is not still representing CCME. Like all of you, I do have reason to believe the facts DLA Piper will report, if a report is issued, will be scathing of the company. (Some of you have the same facts as reported and may come to a different conclusion about the company)."
3--- http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62715108
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:40:08 PM
"I contacted DLA Piper yesterday to confirm they represent CCME. An attorney with DLA Piper spoke with me today and confirmed the representation. I don't see any further reason for anyone to doubt the existence of the representation. I also advise against contacting DLA Piper as they cannot share anything with you that I have not already shared without compromising their relationship with their client, CCME.
Before anyone asks me for more details, let me start by saying I have no further details and I am not offering any further details about that communication, out of respect for the attorney. I did not ask to use the attorney's name so I am not posting it here.
I am choosing to post this message, however, in light of comments brought to my attention that some anonymously questioned the existence of the relationship (despite it being in a press release).
After the attorney acknowledged the relationship with CCME, I explained the confusion over whether Fleishman-Hilliard (FH) did or did not represent CCME at one time on PR matters, and that shareholders are consequently skeptical of CCME announcements or rumors of professional representation by any prominent firm. I also explained that I don't want to ask about anything other than to verify the representation out of respect for their attorney-client privilege. In fact I specified for him not to answer anything further other than answering whether they do represent CCME.
The attorney was professional and polite. He affirmed that CCME is represented by DLP Piper. End of story.
To be clear, I did not ask whether DLA Piper can confirm retainer of PWC. If DLA says they are involved, this means they are aware of the press release and that is good enough for me. If there is something false about that statement, we'd find out soon enough as CCME would have to retract the statement via press release forced by DLA Piper."
4--- http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001144204%2D11%2D025654%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C05%5C03%5C&CoName=CHINA+MEDIAEXPRESS+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=5%2F3%2F2011&pdf=
FUJIAN, China, May 2, 2011 -- China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. ("CME" or "Company"), China's largest television advertising operator on inter-city and airport express buses, today announced that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has retained law firm DLA Piper to assist in its investigation of concerns raised by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (“DTT”) when it resigned as the Company’s registered independent accounting firm on March 11, 2011.
“The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is proceeding with the investigation of the concerns raised by DTT, and is pleased to have DLA Piper on board, who in turn has retained a Big Four audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, to assist in this investigation" stated Mr. George Zhou, Independent Director and member of Audit Committee.
Here is another way of searching WUYI as 1889.HK: here.
Tothe:
Interesting analysis, no, and thanks. Just about the last substantive update to this board was removal of an assistant moderator who regularly updated the board. Since that removal, the Board features remain as stagnant as CCME's price.
Meanwhile there's little things that happen like Starr legal filings or statements to the Wall Street Journal and they come and go without being specially noted in the iBox or the yellow stickies. Then again, what is any statement about CCME from its "representative" really worth?
I'm glad to have time back for other projects and delighted to have gotten out after Cheng disappointed by making no statement at all when trading resumed. Meanwhile the clock ticks down to whenever something substantive happens with CCME, if ever.
Perhaps you should seek to become an assistant moderator.
-Andrew
Could someone kindly add this as a yellow sticky before 48 hours elapses? (meaning someone with moderator authority).. Thanks.
-Andrew
NATH - China is not all pork spending. Read all about it... here.
I'm not checking regularly at this time.
As clarification, between 8:00-8:30 did not say CCME is getting bought out. All he says is that he's not getting into discussing CCME or other companies as specifics. This could mean many things good or bad about CCMe, and the comment as presented is too ambiguous to be read into.
Go back to July 4, EST and ask yourself which is more likely, Casey Anthony being found not guilty of all felonies, or CCME being 100% legit?
Hi all.
1) I bought at 4 cents and sold at 8 1/4 cents. I am looking to buy in again.
2) Back in December I sent then China Broadband (CBBD was not named You On Demand at that time) an extensive letter detailing suggestions to improve the company as an investment. While I did not get a formal reply on point, I have liked what I am seeing.
3) I do check in here regularly. It will be very interesting to see what CBBD does related to possibly seeking a NASDAQ listing.
Thanks for visiting.
-Andrew
When the powers that be set rules that essentially only allowing retail selling without buying, that does strike me as rather price deflative... As with all CCME matters, let's wait and see what does happen.
What would be interesting is if (massive if) something positive is announced, then how long the system takes to correct itself and allow both sides of trading again by regular folks.
China Opens longest bridge in world. The photos arenot yet linkable here. For some of thepictures, read this article here and click to the pictures.
CBBD - You On Demand files S-1: http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=48259933
With a reverse split, new name, deal with Warner Bros., well-connected American management, this could apply for Nasdaq listing. I'm still holding off on rebuying but it's sure interesting to watch the former China Broadband.
Nope. It's 2,982,434... ;)
CCCL Short interest remains minuscule: 6/15/2011 245,471 34,225 7.172272
This figure helps one to distinguish between those who sold CCCL lower (some) and those who doubt CCCL enough to put their money with their mouth is (virtually no one).
-Andrew
This forces nothing. (Where do you come up with that idea?)
Maybe this forces ccme and Loeb to actually update shareholders on whats going on good or bad?
Joe has said so many good things. Which one are you referring to?
One of those facts is mind boggling. Specifically, there are 86,400 seconds in a day. At 50,000 cigarettes per second, that's 4,320,000,000 per day, or divided by 20 per pack, is 216,000,000 packs per day. Multiply by 365 and that's 78,840,000,000 deathstick packs per year. Assume the Chinese population is 1,331,460,000 in 2009. About 16% of the total population smokes a pack a day. Remove kids and that's now closer to 25% of the adult population. With a smoking rate like that, who says China will be overpopulated forever?
Policies change all the time. One day a company is trading, the next day it's halted. One day it's halted, the next day it's trading. One day it's filing an appeal, the next day it's rolling over by not adding a new audit committee member.
So yes, this policy could change.
It's interesting that those legal notice attachments made no mention of CCME.
@ Fernando: I have edited my original message within 15 minutes to account for your message... ;)
If there was war, some people might buy treasuries
Might I suggest hoarding actual gold in a fully stocked private underground concrete fallout shelter, both in advance thereof while drinking caipirinha.
Your other alternative is to watch this 1951 Civil Defense film.
Are you suggesting the paradox that the disclaimer is self-disclaiming?
A whole 100,000 shares?
Like reading a hitpiece, one has to read the ccme.tv website as though the entire disclaimer is the very next sentence on that very page you are reading.
2010 SAIC Docs released to the public:
Hengda SAIC: http://www.cceramics.com/images/2010_CN.pdf
Hengali SAIC: http://www.cceramics.com/images/Hengdali%202010%20SAIC%20report.pdf
Also from the ccme.tv website:
This web site is established by China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. You are advised to read the following terms and conditions carefully prior to using this web site.
All copyright and other intellectual property rights in all text, images, sound, software and other materials on this site are owned by China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc and its affiliated companies or are included with permission of the relevant owner. You are permitted to browse this site and to reproduce extracts by way of printing and downloading to a hard disk, but in all cases for non-commercial and personal purposes only. You may not distribute these materials to others.
Information contained in this site has been provided by China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc in good faith based on material that China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc believes to be correct at the time they are put on this site. In addition, such information is subject to change and may have been superseded by events. No assurance is, therefore, given by China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc that the information in this site is accurate and complete and that it has not changed since it was put on this site. Accordingly, China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc makes no representation and gives no warranty (express or implied) that such information is accurate, free from errors, complete or up-to-date. China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc reserves the right to make changes to the information contained in this site at any time and without notice.
Users of this site should not take any of the information contained in this site as being advice or recommendation, and should not rely on the information in this site for any purpose without seeking independent advice before acting on any information contained in this site.
In no event shall China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc be liable for any damages, losses or liabilities including without limitation, direct or indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages, losses or liabilities, in connection with your use of any of the information contained in this site, or in connection with any failure or performance, error, omission, interruption, defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus or system failure, even if you advise us of the possibility of such damages, losses or expenses.
Your use of this site is governed by the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
Source: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/global/disclaimer.php
Boldface added
In the spirit of visiting a rarer topic - Rare Earths and China discussion article found here.
That source mischaracterizes and/or assumes as fact what the short bloggers purported about the company and/or what some speculate are the reasons for DTT to withdraw. There's nothing confirmed and the source is poorly researched.
I've reviewed the deletions from today, they were presumably from iHub higher ups, not by the Moderators on the Board, and probably done in light of the fact that the MW news was a hoax.
-Andrew
CB/MW: About that fake press release, I wont be surprised when a conspiracy theory is opined that CB or one of his cronies posted or caused to be posted the fake press release only to then have it be inevitably withdrawn, with a motive to highlight his success record, to broaden his reach/public awareness, and even to elicit sympathy.
(I am not saying any of the above is the case; all I'm saying is that 1) the release was fake; and 2) I wont be surprised when someone suggests the above described notion).
-Andrew
Could someone please direct me to the below described Board as I am unaware of any Board which meets this specific description:
"They're all frauds" crap belongs on the "They're all frauds" freebie China board.
_________________
Poster's note: (This is an amended message edited and resubmitted with any additional comment removed to ensure compliance with posting standards. In particular, what might be construed as a lump characterization of China stocks was removed from this message before resubmission).
TRE: Just to finish this thread: Paul Quinn, an analyst in Toronto at RBC Capital Markets, said today in a note that the bank suspended coverage of Sino- Forest pending the findings of an investigation started by an independent committee the forestry company set up, or the “release of information by other independent and credible sources.” Quinn previously had an “outperform” recommendation on the stock.
Yeah, cash confirmation of any sort would be a nice opening act. Meanwhile, I would settle for a big fat lawsuit against DTT for recklessness.
-Andrew
Here is the DTT resignation letter detail (which is also found on the iBox) and on file with the SEC:
The March 31, 2011, 8-K/A clarifies that, prior to its resignation, "DTT raised the following issues (some of which may be considered to be disagreements) encountered during the audit, including: 1) issues related to the authenticity of bank statements; 2) a loss of confidence in bank confirmation procedures carried out under circumstances which DTT believed to be suspicious; 3) issues concerning the validity of certain advertising agents/ 4) customers and 5) bus operators (including with respect to certain of the 6) Company's top ten customers); 7) concerns over possible undisclosed bank accounts and 8) bank loans; 9) information on file with the State Administration of Industry and Commerce as to certain subsidiaries appearing to be inconsistent with comparable financial information provided to DTT; 10) the verification of the validity of a sampling of tax invoices issued in connection with certain large transactions; 11) the verification of certain subsidiary tax payments with the local office of the State Administration of Taxation; 12) the verification of salary payments made in cash directly to employee bank accounts; 13) the verification of the production process for advertising programs; and 14) the potential double counting of a certain number of buses. As a result, DTT had requested that the bank confirmation process be re-done at the banks' head office and that the issues described above be addressed by an independent forensic investigation." (numbers added)
Given the dark cloud of skepticism over this entire sector for lack of safeguards, candor, and honesty, not to mention the way this management threw shareholders under a bus by not defending itself, by not preparing a defense, and by not heeding warnings, it's frankly more complicated than verifying a cash balance at a particular bank even at the main branch. The market needs to know where the cash goes after its verified, where the cash came from in the first place (in detail), and what safeguards protect this cash from being loaned or misallocated in the future (even if the eventual analysis shows the cash was never actually misused in the first place).
The market would also like to know the story, including but not limited to:
1) Why Jacky resigned and his detailed recollections of the BOD meeting;
2) Why Dorothy resigned and her detailed recollections of the BOD meeting including all the steps she wanted the CEO to take to protect shareholders;
3) Why the CEO refused to allow DTT to at least audit cash at each respective bank's main branch;
4) Detailed, confirmed sources of revenue through 100% of revenue (not shy of 50% of revenue);
5) What efforts the company made, if any, to meet basic NASDAQ listing standards by appointing someone to the BOD who would also serve on the Audit Committee;
6) an accounting of all shares held by management individually and collectively shown by more than mere SEC filings;
7) Filing to name the new CFO; and
8) Detailing company financial activities since January 2011 including new business, lost business, etc.
There are other important details also needed.
Bottom line, how the company chooses to share the findings of the Independent Directors with shareholders will be telling of how trustworthy the information found actually is. Remember that these Independent Directors hired DLA Piper who then retained PWC. We have never been told the audit ongoing is "forensic". We have not been told that the audit or research by DLA Piper/PWC will be made available to shareholders. The report, if any, may share some details and leave out others (much like the way CCME told shareholders about the DTT resignation).
Not to mention that the report may come back with favorable information, alarming details, anything in between and any combination of the two.
The proof will be in the pudding.
-Andrew
OT - AAPL 0 14:55 EDT Apple breaks below its 200-day MA, next support is at $314.36
(Overall market crash intensifying...)