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.
MNYC: GMAB. Someone who is "all negative" says this is definitely going to zero. When did I say that?
You would like to discredit me as biased against this name instead of dealing with the real allegations and serious deadlines facing the company. My observations are driven by the facts (which include the now baron fundamentals and serious fraud allegations, plus managerial incompetence), not by loss or by a desire to attack the company.
Ask yourself why CCME did not get another member on its Board of Directors to also serve on the Audit Committee to help remain NASD compliant and prevent the halt from ending early (i.e. ending before the DLA Piper/ PWC report is complete).
Andrew
Jtechkid, you must not know me. I root for the truth, honesty, and integrity.
CB NYT - "But critics contend this emerging force has a financial motive to exaggerate and even fabricate information."
MNYC: I would be delighted if the news is really good. That would be wonderful.
What if it's not?
What if the news is delayed or the deadline extended because CCME did not get its act together?
What if the info learned has holes? Example: The CEO's letter on Feb 7.
You are gambling.
-Andrew
MNYC your question here illustrates the problem with your conviction-- that it's not founded on a thorough understanding of the CCME story.
The price here is controlled by news because there are serious allegations of fraud, plus ongoing proceedings in HK and the US, not to mention that the SEC could halt this at any point-- particularly if the news that comes out is bad. That makes technical analysis of this particular name far less reliable, and a whole lot closer to gambling.
If the news that comes is positive, well that would be wonderful. If the news is negative, that would be really bad for the price. The bet is on the news.
Since you asked, Monday June 13th, 2011 is the deadline to respond to the Staar Lawsuit in Delaware and some say the Arbitration case in Hong Kong is also proximate in time.
This was in their Motion for Extension filed on April 11th in Delaware Federal Court. The link to the motion for extension is posted in the iBox. (I wonder how it got there...)
"WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Defendants China MediaExpress
Holdings, Inc. and Zheng Cheng respectfully request that the Court enter an order extending their
time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint through and including June 13,
2011."
-Andrew
George Zhou - it's a name drop, implying familiarity...
Independent Committee of CME Board Retains DLA Piper to Advise in Connection with Investigation
Date : 05/02/2011 @ 9:30AM
Source : PR Newswire
Stock : China Mediaexpress Holdings, Inc. (MM) (CCME)
Quote : 11.8799 0.0 (0.00%) @ 2:05AM
"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's his bio on the CCME site:
George, Ronghong Zhou, Independent Non-Executive Director
Mr. Zhou is currently the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Beijing Tengzhong Investment Ltd. and a director of Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Machinery Industrial Co., Ltd. Prior to joining Beijing Tengzhong, Mr. Zhou was Chief Operation Officer of Benda Pharmaceutical. Prior to joining Benda Pharmaceutical, Mr. Zhou was a Partner and Managing Director of Eos Funds, where he directed investments in Chinese companies which intended to list on U.S. and Canadian exchanges. Prior to that, Mr. Zhou served as Co-Founder, president & Chief Executive Officer, and member of the Board of Directors of Abepharma Ltd. and Red Mountain Pharmaceuticals (China) Ltd. respectively. He was also a Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Kangjian Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Before entrering the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Zhou was a post-doctoral fellow in molecular biology at the University of Victoria, Canada, and received a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Umea University, Sweden. He had his master degree in genetics at Southwest University, China. He also worked as an associate professor at Chongqing University, China.
-Andrew
This post by CanZen should be a yellow sticky.
CanZen wrote: I disagree. If people have something meaningful to say as a bull or bear, both have been aired here freely and I thank the moderators for their efforts.
If someone's only contribution is "this is going to $5" and repeats the post throughout the day, they deserve to be chastised.
Most of the other comments are raising valid counterpoints to bullish sentiment. At this juncture, there are cases to be made by both camps.
CCCL Short interest up some. 5/31/2011 135,745 57,042 2.379738\
Makes me wonder who knew about this silly downgrade by TheStreet... Have you read that trashy discussion. Looks like it was spat out by a TRS-80 in 1982... Did a human even review the conclusions?
-Andrew
“The only problems emerge when research is in fact based on insider tips. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here.”
The good Professor is not addressing all the possible legal problems. Fabrication of misleading information for the purpose of manipulation of the security is a major problem too.
-Andrew
Blue:
I count five references to the $5.00 prediction. Here is your a la carte MNYC summary all at once for recap with boldface added in case you missed any of these posts. (MNYC, thanks for being a good sport in this regard).
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:36:48 PM
Re: suntzutrade post# 32431 Post # of 32437
Agree. 5.00+ pretty soon, maybe even next week. Those who bought much higher, average down and enjoy it like some of us who buy down here.
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 8:24:52 PM
Re: Jtechkid post# 32422 Post # of 32437
Agree, this will be 5.00+ pretty soon. Just one look at the chart shows that a bounce/ reversal (albeit a little slower than SNOF*/ TRE) is in.
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 4:01:39 PM
Re: None Post # of 32437
Nice close. Should move up from here
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 4:00:40 PM
Re: None Post # of 32437
1.85 wee . Sh
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:45:17 PM
Re: stocknovicehere post# 32394 Post # of 32437
I think when it's all said and done and with next official CCME PR we should see it reflecting. Better be in before that squeeze or happy chasing
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:39:03 PM
Re: Jtechkid post# 32389 Post # of 32437
Like I said 5.00+ on the way
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:31:25 PM
Re: Jtechkid post# 32389 Post # of 32437
Weeeeee
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:18:18 PM
Re: T-R1 post# 32387 Post # of 32437
Just buy and sit back. See you 4.00-5.00+ soon
China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. (NO^CCME)
MNYC
Thursday, June 09, 2011 2:29:04 PM
Re: blue3116 post# 32383 Post # of 32437
SNOF*/TRE was always a pinky even at 20.00 so it doesn't matter.
I think CCME can go 4.00/ 5.00 at least on this bounce and with positive news even a big shortsqueeze
_______________________
End of Recap
-Andrew
Chris:
I laughed out loud for like a minute after I read your opening few lines!
-Andrew
MCT: You were not responding to me in that message (unless TR-1 is also named Andrew). Perhaps you meant someone else? If me, what was the decision based on on emotion to which you refer? My only decision here was to sell shortly after shares opened pink without any new information from management after we all waited throughout the halt where the CEO cold not even get a new Board Member for the Auditing Committee given everything else we were all told in the resignations too.
-Andrew
Yours is one of the finest messages posted on this Board. Right to the point. It amazes me when people show up here not knowing their audience or their background.
-Andrew
subtzutrade:
GMAB. Block's research is lousy. Anyone who knows me or read anything from me will tell you I think Block fabricated material information in his reports to manipulate a security in violation of the Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.
In fact, you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the China boards who has written so critically of these CCME hitpieces as pure fabrications to manipulate the CCME stock. I've been very critical of Block and remain critical. The SEC needs to look very carefully at Block and take the actions that are, to me, obvious given Rule 10b-5.
The key issue here is not Block. Forget about Block.
The issue is what the CEO has and has not done related to the allegations about bank records. The CEO left the shareholders to twist in the wind while the shares plummetted.
The CEO did not even get another Audit Committee Director. That one little thing is completely in this CEO's power. But he did not do it, hence trading resumption before the so called exonerating report may come.
That is the ultimate in throwing shareholders under a bus.
In sum, I am not even considering what Block wrote to form my extremely cautious opinion of CCME's management.
-Andrew
Taken in the light most favorable to CCME, let's say the article means CCME has a lot of buses under contract. Let's say also that they make a bunch of money.
That's as far as you can take this article.
It does not address things like what happens to that cash once it arrives at CCME. Does it, for example, end up elsewhere? The biggest unanswered question is what difference, if any, is found between records provided to DTT from CCME's local bank branches and/or via CCME as a conduit of these reports, and those statements found at the bank headquarters which are, say, confirmed by an executive accountant for the bank itself (given these circumstances).
It does not confirm the extent of earnings per bus either.
You see, Zheng could have said, our statements are accurate and we will have an accounting firm other than DTT go look and report to you shareholders directly. But he did not do this.
-Andrew
Cheng Zheng threw all shareholders under a bus. Be careful concluding anything about this CEO's management decisions as relates to shareholders based on these extraneous factors. The record of incompetence, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to keep shareholders informed resulted in over 100 million lost by shareholders. Zheng had ample resources to get good PR and legal to help him defend the company. But he has done nothing since the shareholder letter.
Some further comments:
1) The "[decline] to comment" comment does not mean DLA Piper is or is not still representing CCME's Independent Directors.
The fact of representation by an attorney of a client is not something the attorney has to respond to in this situation because such information is privileged. Therefore DLA Piper would not be authorized to communicate its representation or lack of representation unless CCME's Independent Directors so authorized. (The privilege belongs to the client and this can include the fact of termination or non-termination of the representation).
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) Also note that the information that filters to the public will be effectively filtered by CCME. DLA Piper owes a duty to the Independent Directors and not any shareholders. Same for PWC.
4) Recall that the reasons for DTT's resignation were also initially filtered out by CCME. In fact, CCME knew there were serious concerns by DTT weeks before the halt, and CCME twiddled its thumbs even before the resignation.
5) BTW, someone could interpret this report as suggesting that CCME intends to go dark, i.e. we're disappointed with the way the US markets work so we're out of here.
-Andrew
CCME - milestone- the word "spokesperson" was used in the below article that attributes a few soundbites representing China MediaExpress. The comment(s), come to us somewhat lost in translation, or at least as an undependable translation typical of the CCME Amateur Hour.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576375403437451750.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
Read copy here: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64076256
Seems they show up and check out three buses at the same place, who knows precisely where, and whether that place is held out has having CME equipped buses or not. How "movie" translates is also a question.
The part of the article that matters is sloppy.
-Andrew
A few things:
1) Considering that this article has an actual quote from someone the WSJ holds out as a spokesperson for CME-- a first of its kind in this bizarre Zheng Cheng world without Investors Relations-- it probably belongs as a stickypost.
2) In answer to the question, I still have not bought back in since I sold at 3.85 (not 3.89 which someone else wrote of me).
3) To whoever wanted the link to Nussbaum's article, it's here: http://www.thedeal.com/magazine/ID/039114/community/bridging-the-information-gap.php
-Andrew
Wish we had the translations from this hearsay:
"You'll find that every bus has got a different set of movies," said a deputy station master, Wang Hui.
Mr. Li, the MediaExpress spokesman, said the company now has misgivings about how it listed in the U.S. "We had never considered that this way of listing would come [at the expense] of investor trust," he said.
What necessarily is "movie" in this context?
Three buses. Where did they go this time?
Even what the spokesperson said has what appear to be translation issues-- and probably issues with honesty too.
-Andrew
The ethics issue is significant. The main problem is violation of the law itself, not just a sense of ethics, where material information is false, misleading, or presented in bad faith to manipulate a security, particularly for the gain of the publisher or any acting in concert. The main legal question is whether there's a 10b-5 violation. There's little doubt in my mind that some of these reports/hitpieces/exposes under discussion in this sector contained material components which violate 10b-5.
To me, even if the overall thesis of a hitpiece is right, i.e. that bank records are fabricated, the mere inclusion of additional, gratuitous, extraneous, knowingly false or misleading information renders the author/publisher in jeopardy of violation of 10b-5.
The rescuer who pockets cash found inside the burning building is still engaging in larceny. See your local laws for specifics.
The additionally included false or misleading information is material if it would meaningfully affect shareholder voting decisions, i.e. false or misleading information which reflect the dishonesty of the management.
-Andrew
Security and Exchange Commission issues an Official Warning on RTOs: here. (CCME was an RTO).
See story in The Street here.
How about regulating, protecting US investors from companies over which US courts have no jurisdiction, and bringing real enforcement actions instead of warning after the fact?
-Andrew
Funny that this is rated "Strong Buy" in an iBox without a Moderator! Now let's look at the performance over the last year... down about 74%. Hmmmm. I guess it was all the name, right?
-Andrew
CHINA - the stock -- AKA CDC Corp. must really be regretting its choice of symbol right about now almost as much as its horrible balance sheet. Only down 74% for the year, from 8 to 2.15, it feels particularly good to say CHINA itself is up there on the worst of the worst list. Among other things, they sell software licenses --- in CHINA?! GMAB
-Andrew
CCCL ranks highly on China Trading where you can read lots of good information about China Ceramics. Click here to see the China Trading discussion and rank.
-Andrew
The signal really was dropping off the Reg SHO list.
I just want to thank Michael for all his efforts related to the Board and also for his contributions to the extended conversation about CCME and the China Small Cap space in general, including many names which concern people who read and post on this Board. Thank you Michael.
-Andrew
XIN - Manager AJ Kapur with Deutsche Bank on Closing Bell talking about buying China property, materials, banks. He did not name even one company name. Long term he likes Engineering and Healthcare. How hard would it have been for him to say XIN?
O/T - Open question - What happens when the Federal Reserve Charter expires?
Arthur_Big: Privilege is not an element of front running, i.e. a short seller who caused a sale or purchase of a security by knowingly or intentionally releasing misleading or false information that is so important as to be material.
Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
In the case of TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.,[2] the word "material" was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court - "an omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote."
Your use of privilege does not apply in the way you apply it. If anything, the private information shared between the hitpiece writer and its client to whom it may owe a fiduciary duty (by being in a special relationship such as a lawyer, accountant, or under an NDA (technically not privileged, just trade secretive or private / non-publicetc.) before publication is privileged/private governed by Agreement until shared or made public, as may be their relationship.
If, for example, Block on his own uncovers actual proof of fraud by the management of a traded security, that information uncovered and known to Block is not privileged simply because it may happen to also be "material" information under SC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
To be actionable front running, the material information shared has to be known to be false.
Bottom line: Has this kind of front running described here running taken place? Plainly yes.
-Andrew
Carson, someone has your number. Blessed Canada
"The Company has also formally requested that the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada investigate the trading of the Company's shares by Muddy Waters, LLC and its principal Carson Block and anyone associated with these persons in advance of the issuance of the Muddy Waters' report."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sino-forest-confirms-ontario-securities-commission-investigation-123466859.html
CCME breaks 2 bucks.
CCCL - just 4,923 shares traded. That's some confirmation of this current price.
-Andrew
CBBD has done a private placement with FIL HK to raise 10.9MM for 9.4% of the company. Recent price is down from .12 to .09. FIL HK paid about .08. I sold all a month or so ago at .085. There still appears to be approval of a 200:1 reverse split so these translate to 8 bucks a share now if that RS is acted upon. This is not the first time this company raised cash.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/YOU-On-Demand-Raises-109-prnews-2239739461.html?x=0&.v=1
-Andrew
CBBD has done a private placement with FIL HK to raise 10.9MM for 9.4% of the company. Recent price is down from .12 to .09. FIL HK paid about .08. I sold all a month or so ago at .085. There still appears to be approval of a 200:1 reverse split so these translate to 8 bucks a share now if that RS is acted upon. This is not the first time this company raised cash.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/YOU-On-Demand-Raises-109-prnews-2239739461.html?x=0&.v=1
-Andrew
CBBD - for the masses also watching CBBD, they've done a private placement with FIL HK to raise 10.9MM for 9.4% of the company. Recent price is down from .12 to .09. FIL HK paid about .08. I sold all a month or so ago at .085. There still appears to be approval of a 200:1 reverse split so these translate to 8 bucks a share now if that RS is acted upon. This is not the first time this company raised cash.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/YOU-On-Demand-Raises-109-prnews-2239739461.html?x=0&.v=1
-Andrew
Move over CGS, SEC suspensions now come in spraycans...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SEC-suspends-trading-of-17-apf-3698551032.html;_ylt=AsW.MsoOudGvSZXlBeRa9Oa7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2pub3JxBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNzZWNzdXNwZW5kc3Q-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=