With respect to the lawsuit.
1. The cost of the litigation will fall on SIAf as well as the plaintiff, of course. But SIAF has most of the information it needs to defend, while the plaintiffs need to do research, and investigate ownership, determine JV interests and other issues, many of which can only be found in China. And when I talked about substantial costs for Seiden, I was comparing the cost to a case where the dark Chinese company did not respond at all to the lawsuit, allowing for a default judgment. That will not likely happen here.
2. Appointment of a receiver would require showing substantial, serious, and continuing breaches of fiduciary duty to shareholders, and acting in disregard of shareholder interests. It is a high bar, and requires much more than showing bad decisions that have not worked out well, and a low stock price. I very much doubt they can make such a showing, especially in light of the very detailed filings SIAF has made over the years.
However, if a receiver was appointed, the receiver would have control of the entire company, and would be involved in all financial decisions regarding debt, sales terms, collections, etc. That's why there must be a very clear showing of deliberate and intentional disregard of shareholder interests.
As for me, I certainly would not join the lawsuit, as I think it is ill-considered, premature, and requires a very high buy-in contribution. If the company goes dark, which I consider unlikely, I might change my mind.
I think we are better served by working with people like Garrett and others to get some new, qualified board members and a new CFO, as well as continue to encourage the company to do the Triway dividend it has already promised, and the cash dividend that it announced last year.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
