temp luvs amy...Meuse 10% ownership.....
"And if you expect that his Lawyer is some sort near-deity personna, you have a lot to learn about lawyers."
I'm not exactly sure why you seem to be so irritated over an issue that I don't believe is a problem. Or at least not a problem of any significance that should influence an investor's buy/sell decision on this particular stock.
Sure, everybody makes mistakes. Including lawyers. But given the lengthy history Belmont/Meuse has regarding RM-related filings, I think it is only reasonable to assume that Belmont has a pretty good knowledge base regarding SEC filings. So, it might not be prudent to just jump to conclusions and immediately assume a mistake has been made on the Form 4 filing.
"His form 4 shows a clear mathematical error. It states that he is a "10% owner" and that he holds "ZERO shares""
Not necessarily. It is highly likely that Belmont is going to retain a 10% ownership in the RM. My guess is that as part of the RM transaction the China RM target will be obligated to issue at least a 10% ownership position to Belmont (similiar to what the IDCX RM/transaction requires). Notice in the IDCX filings that Belmont is listed as a 10% owner, even though it technically doesn't own any shares yet.
Therefore, it is entirely possible the SEC requires that Belmont identify itself as a 10% owner of CCKH as a result of a contractual obligation with the RM company.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
