reply to RealDutch about the thinking in settling the litigation, either the plaintiffs just wanted out, or, they have a settlement that is targeting more than just an exit. The new attorney offers a history of negotiation and is fluent in languages for USA and China, so let's try to guess for fun what might be in the settlement? The request to get an extension of time for the settlement said for both the reason of change of attorneys, and, for a reason related to negotiations for the settlement. My speculation, prior to learning this information, was that plaintiffs were paying to change attorneys, get new attorneys up to speed, and exiting by settlement, with the speculation on my part that they would only be spending more money to get out if Solomon had out-negotiated them. How? Again, my speculation was that they entered the litigation believing that Solomon would be unable to fund hiring competent attorneys for defending against the litigation, and, proven wrong were anxious to exit. My back-up theory was speculating that plaintiffs believed Solomon had lost the confidence of the local government and cooperatives needed to even have a chance of continuing in business, and, again, having been proven wrong, were trying to exit.
Solomon leading SIAF did get stimulus lending signed off by the local government, but in a small amount. That might be meaningful, but, it is also potentially meaningless for shareholders because of all the other problems that bedevil SIAF at every turn. My personal view, based only on reading the public record, is that when SIAF took the write-offs on the regional butchering business as a hit without sharing more of the pain than loss of jobs and loss of opportunities for staying in that business, that was also investing in credibility with the local government, and, I feel vindicated in that view (so far). (Getting stimulus funding was a BIG accomplishment, and, means being on the list that local government wants to keep going).
Yes, you are right, prospects for getting a spin out through listings in Hong Kong are dismal. Another in too many steps that failed. However, focusing on Tri-Way, you always realized if the plaintiffs were getting paid to leave, that pay was from assets in Tri-Way.
Why fight to keep the terms of settlement secret? No public disclosure required on the Tri-Way side but public disclosure required on the SIAF side. Tri-Way owes money to SIAF, but, a deal to pay the plaintiffs rather than to pay SIAF would potentially be a problem in the court, so an attorney claiming capability in the language where the assets are and where the deal can be done in maximized obscurity from SIAF shareholders (and the judge in the USA) is the possible risk from the substitution of attorneys. Only if the attorney for both countries is "in on the deal" can that kind of structure fly without being grounded, right?
Is there any possible reason to keep SIAF alive? Zerohedge claimed many times that the only reason has always been to sell shares rather than operate a business. Solomon may be distrusted by many shareholders, but, he still appears to have control and still says that he is keeping the doors open with restructuring.
I am gambling that there MIGHT be ongoing profitable fish raising and that there MIGHT be a reorganization that recombines SIAF with Tri-Way into one entity that attempts to rename itself, also re-purpose away from the spin-out model that had only failures and poisoned anyone from buying in for that as a business purpose. Operate with the assets as is without renaming and repurposing makes no sense. Renaming and repurposing invites recaptilizing, including another reverse split and appearing to reboot as a more substantial entity.
That is what I expect we will be seeing.
