ZKIZ Archives


酒店話事人鄭志雯豪言開多40間 鄭家孫女初長成 李華華


 
2010-10-26  AD
 

 

鄭家孫女初長 成,養在深閨大家終於都識!新世界發展(017)董事總經理鄭家純位千金鄭志雯,唔經唔覺負責新世界嘅酒店業務接近兩年,噚日首次透過新聞稿,講解發展藍 圖,透露新世界中國(917)旗下新世界酒店,計劃喺未來五年,投資85.8億擴展業務,開超過40間酒店。

鄭志雯今年29歲,同大哥鄭志 剛都喺美國名牌哈佛大學畢業,擁有哈佛應用數學文學學位,主修經濟,曾經喺一間國際投資銀行同埋美資私募基金,負責地產業務。08年底回歸家族生意,負責 新世界發展同新中嘅酒店業務;09年2月坐正做新世界發展酒店首席總監,同埋新中旗下新世界酒店執行副主席。

5年內投資86億

不過,鄭志雯一直埋頭苦幹,甚少公開講述業務發展。相反,佢兩個兄弟──志明與志剛,因為分管新世界發展及新創建(659)兩間上市公司,早就粉墨登場,成日要同傳媒分享公司發展大計。

今次佢發出新聞稿講述發展計劃,可能係參考最近港交所李小加,同埋恒隆地產(101)董事長陳啟宗發表「萬言書」嘅做法,年紀輕輕已經識得效法猛人,叻女!

鄭 志雯集中講解新中旗下新世界酒店嘅發展策略,新店主要喺內地同東南亞經營新世界同貝爾特品牌嘅酒店,現有8間酒店。佢又話,諗住響未來五年投資85.8億 元擴展業務,希望開設超過40間酒店,現有20多個項目正在發展中,除咗新世界及貝爾特,亦會推出一個全新高級酒店品牌……大嗱嗱86億投資,好明顯阿爸 同阿爺彤叔,已經對鄭志雯投下信心一票,成績如何,拭目以待。

閉關兩年正式考牌

咪睇鄭志雯年紀輕輕,對於酒店業務經營方針,其實佢已經有自己嘅一套!佢認為,今時今日嘅酒店業不斷走向商品化同產品化,背棄咗「以人為本」嘅待客之道,所以佢提出「以心為本」,希望重新建立與客人之間嘅長久關係!

有 個咁高嘅職位,佢嘅志氣亦唔嘢小,就係希望新世界酒店利用未來幾年發展,成為一間國際酒店企業,擁有獨有嘅企業文化,響業界訂定新指標同標準,令品牌同所 代表嘅獨特文化備受國際認同。佢亦都好明白到龐大嘅中國市場有幾重要,預期未來收入有一半以上嚟自內地,二、三線城市更加係主要動力來源。

仲記得鄭家純早前曾經講過,將會畀幾個仔女幾年時間,響新世界系內嘅公司發揮所長,觀察吓邊個適合做邊一瓣生意,家陣鄭小姐苦練兩年後出關,好明顯「考牌」o依家正式開始!

李華華

LiWaWa@AppleDaily.com

 


酒店 事人 鄭誌 誌雯 豪言 開多 40 鄭家 孫女 長成 華華
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=18885

話事人


周小川大談十三,五,改革、市場化、國際化之餘,談得最多為金融安全。

眾所周知,即使國策當前,但底線是不能危及金融安全,但調轉一問,內地政策是否反而來是一直在製造金融安全問題?

股市一役已經明顯,到今日,小川少提股市,卻大談債市,目標2020年要股市規模相當於GDP一倍。

內地債市由006年佔GDP兩成七,到明年預計佔比達62%,規模四十萬億人民幣,高盛估算,以現時速度移動,2020年規模可達21萬億美元,即過百萬億人民幣,佔比超過一倍目標,易於反掌。

「小川長」推動債市,目標是提升直接融資比例,他同時間三番四次強調深化政策銀行,提倡政策金融,用意既要為壞帳累累內銀休養生息,亦為當局隨時擴大財字佔比3%死線做定準備,種種一切,固然源於6.5底線的堅定不移不退讓。

為提升直接融資比例及人仔使用而推動債市,好事也,惟一旦根本源於要應付數字式增長,及更多潛在赤字的話,情況猶需關注。

內地目前債券價格錯配嚴重,企業及地方財務良莠不齊,但持三個A級別債券佔比達到六成,而平均到期僅為4.3年,年期過短太受流動性因素左右,而且違約機制未確立,搞活債市,反過來可能是搞活道德風險。

股市爆煲,除因為槓桿過度之外,歸根咎底是升市政策製造出來的道理風險所致,一場道德風險災難,靠央行大灑流動性解決,

現實世界中,有錢可以話事,難怪中央醞釀監管大執位,人行隨時變身英倫銀行呼聲最高。

英國自從海嘯後,所有金融監管歸由英倫銀行負責,餘下另設獨立機構,負責投資者保障。

類似的「雙峰」模式Twin Peak屬於環球大趨勢,內地領導誠意可嘉,但財金部委既是監管者,亦是政策推動者一兼兩職角色不變,似乎改革註定難有成功。

內地強調金融監管協調,某程度上為本港提供一定反思。

金融三級制奉行多年,港交所、證監會談不上協調,至於證記及金記,表面相不相干,但證券業務分業監管,混亂之餘,亦跟後海嘯後全球金融發展完全未能與時並進。 
事人
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=177282

金山能源前話事人 美證交會控侵吞資產

1 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:28:15

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/Finance/20120225/News/ec_eck1.htm
【明報專訊】本港上市公司金山能源(0663)股東之一的山西煤老闆趙明,被美國證券交易委員會(SEC)指控侵吞其在美上市的煤礦公司Puda Coal公司資產。金山能源回應本報查詢稱,趙明現與公司業務無任何來往,事件對金山無任何影響。

美國證券交易委員會(SEC)近日在曼哈頓聯邦法院提起訴訟,稱Puda Coal董事長趙明在2009年9月將公司主要資產,即該公司間接持有的山西普大煤業90%的股權秘密轉至自己名下,並在2010年7月把其中49%的股權出售給了一家中國私募股權基金。SEC稱,趙明同時涉嫌將山西普大煤業51%的資產做抵押,換取5.16億美元貸款。上述資產轉移未得到Puda Coal董事會批准,也沒有在公開文件中向投資者披露。


趙明曾是金山能源的實際控制人。上市後不久,金山能源便迅速擧動了收購山西芍藥花煤礦和酉宜煤礦的事宜。2012年2月1日,金山能源公告稱,關於收購的諒解備忘錄已失效,未來會尋求其他投資項目。

金山:趙明持股低於1%

金山能源投資總監葉永威表示,根據最新股東名冊,趙明在公司持股已下降至低於1%,業務上亦無任何來往,故事件對金山無任何影響。
2 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:35:11

[realblog]http://realblog.zkiz.com/greatsoup/11284[/realblog]
3 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:35:45

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edga ... aform2509122011.htm
On April 8, 2011, a website article was posted and made allegations regarding certain improper transactions by Mr. Ming Zhao, the Chairman of Puda Coal (the “Article”). Specifically, the Article alleged, among other things, that prior to its initial listing on the Exchange, Mr. Zhao transferred the Company’s 90% interest in Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd., the Company’s operating subsidiary (“Shanxi Coal”), from the Company to Mr. Zhao. On April 11, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had unanimously ratified the decision of its Audit Committee to launch a full investigation into these allegations (the “Investigation”). In the press release, the Company stated that, “although the investigation is in preliminary stages, evidence supports the allegation that there were transfers by Mr. Zhao in subsidiary ownership that were inconsistent with disclosure made by the Company in its public securities filings.”
4 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:40:33

http://seekingalpha.com/article/ ... hinese-pe-investors

Chinese RTO Puda Coal, Inc (PUDA) Chairman Ming Zhao transferred the ownership of PUDA’s sole Chinese operating entity, Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd (“Shanxi Coal”), to himself in 2009 without shareholder approval according to official government filings. Then, in 2010, Zhao sold 49% and pledged the other 51% of Shanxi Coal to CITIC Trust Co., Ltd (“CITIC”), a Chinese private equity fund, for RMB245 million ($37.1 million).

Zhao then recklessly leveraged Shanxi Coal by borrowing RMB3.5 billion ($530.3 million) from CITIC at an incredibly high 14.5% annual interest rate (including fees) to finance the development of its coal mines. PUDA shareholders are completely unaware of these transactions that decimate the value of its U.S. listed shares.

Background – An Industry Facing Government Mandated Consolidation

According to PUDA’s 2010 10-K filing:

  In order to improve production efficiency, workplace safety and to reduce coal mine accidents, the Shanxi provincial government issued a policy in 2009 requiring mergers and consolidations of smaller coal mining companies in Shanxi Province. Pursuant to the government policy, the government awarded certain selected larger coal production enterprises the opportunity to acquire, consolidate and restructure smaller coal mines through mergers, acquisitions and asset or share transfers.

The aggressive government mandated consolidation of the coal mining industry beginning in 2009 coincided with the darkest days of the world financial crisis. PUDA management either had to become a consolidator, requiring massive additional capital, or else dispose of its coal businesses. Management, lead by Chairman Ming Zhao, made the decision to pursue aggressive growth by becoming a consolidator. Unfortunately for PUDA, during the financial crisis, the U.S. capital markets were completely closed. Therefore, in September 2009, Chairman Ming Zhao made a fateful first step to attract Chinese domestic investors: he transferred the ownership of Shanxi Coal to himself.

PUDA Chairman Ming Zhao Takes Action, Stealing Shanxi Coal from U.S. Shareholders

In order to raise money domestically, Zhao needed to sever the direct foreign shareholder ownership of Shanxi Coal, PUDA’s sole Chinese operating subsidiary. On 9/3/09, Yao Zhao (Ming Zhao’s brother and the legal representative of PUDA’s WFOE, Shanxi Putai Resources Limited, “Putai”) illegally authorized Putai to transfer 90% of Shanxi Coal to Ming Zhao, adding to the 8% Ming Zhao already held. Additionally, Yao Zhao divided his own 2% of Shanxi Coal between Ming Zhao and Wei Zhang.

An official copy of the “Notification of Share Registry Change” can be downloaded here (.pdf), including a partial translation. The transfers resulted in Ming Zhao owning 99% of Shanxi Coal, leaving U.S. investors with nothing. Incredibly, PUDA’s auditor, Moore Stephens, failed to catch this theft of an entire company that is clearly documented in government ownership filings that any lawyer can obtain directly from the source.

After stealing Shanxi Coal from U.S. investors, Ming Zhao began looking for domestic investors to fund his aggressive expansion plans. At the same time, Zhao brazenly continued trying to raise money for PUDA in the U.S., despite the fact PUDA (without Shanxi Coal) was just a shell company. As U.S. capital markets recovered, on 2/18/10, PUDA sold 3.284 million shares in a public offering underwritten by Brean Murray and Newbridge Securities raising $14.5 million (8-K here), without disclosing to the investors that PUDA no longer owned Shanxi Coal, its sole operating subsidiary in China. Why did Brean Murray fail to perform any basic legal due diligence on the real ownership of Shanxi Coal?

Chairman Zhao Sells Half of Shanxi Coal and Borrows $530.3 Million at 14.5%

In July 2010, Zhao recklessly accepted a highly leveraged RMB2.745 billion ($416 million) equity and debt investment from the $31.3 billion Chinese private equity arm of China International Trust and Investment Company (“CITIC”, website here). On 7/15/10 Zhao sold 49% of Shanxi Coal to CITIC for RMB245 million ($37.1 million) and pocketed the proceeds. An official copy of the “Notification of Share Registry Change” can be downloaded here, including a partial translation.

On 7/19/10 Zhao and Zhang pledged the other 51% of Shanxi Coal to CITIC as security so that the company could obtain a 3-year loan for RMB2.5 billion ($379 million) at a cost of 14.5% (annual interest plus fees) from CITIC. (Note: Zhao pledged 50% and Wei Zhang pledged his 1% of Shanxi Coal to CITIC so that the entire remaining 51% of the company was thus pledged to CITIC). The loan was subsequently increased to RMB3.5 billion ($530.3 million), bringing the combined investment to RMB 3.745 billion ($567.4 million). The official filed copies of the share pledge agreements detailing all these amounts can be downloaded here (.pdf) and here (.pdf).

As of 1/26/11, the outstanding principal, interest and fees payable under the 14.5% 3-year loan agreement amounted to RMB5.0225 billion ($761 million). Annual interest and fees on the loan are an incredible RMB507.5 million ($76.9 million USD), over twice the $34 million EBIT shown in PUDA’s 2010 10-K filing. Shanxi Coal is now a highly leveraged bet on Ming Zhao’s operational ability to dramatically increase coal production and profitability enough to service the company’s crushing debt load. Any disruption could lead to default and loss of the pledged shares to CITIC.

On 12/16/10, PUDA again tapped the U.S. capital markets, this time for $101.5 million by selling 7.85 million shares at $12 per share in a public offering underwritten by Macquarie Capital and Brean Murray (8-K here). PUDA again failed to disclose Chairman Zhao’s 9/3/09 illegal transfer of 99% of Shanxi Coal to himself, nor Zhao’s illegal sale of 49% of Shanxi Coal to CITIC for $37.1 million, nor the $530.3 million 14.5% loan from CITIC secured by the pledge of the remaining 51% of Shanxi Coal shares. Why did Macquarie Capital also fail to perform basic legal due diligence on the real ownership of Shanxi Coal, half of which had been already sold to CITIC? Furthermore, at $12 per share, Macquarie investors paid over six times the $1.91 valuation CITIC paid for 49% of Shanxi Coal in July (see my discussion of valuation at the end of this report).

Chairman Zhao Secretly Returns a Portion of the Shanxi Coal to the Rightful Owner

In a partial attempt to cover up his theft of the company, Chairman Zhao and Wei Zhang transferred their pledged 51% interest in Shanxi Coal to Shanxi Puda Mining Industry Ltd (“Puda Mining”), a former 100% owned subsidiary of Shanxi Coal that, through suspicious shareholder shuffling, Zhao maneuvered to make it the 51% parent of Shanxi Coal. Puda Mining’s 51% interest in Shanxi Coal continues to be completely pledged to CITIC (see official agreement here (.pdf)).

According to the government filing (available here (.pdf)), Puda Mining shares are now 90% owned by Putai (the WFOE), 8% Ming Zhao and 2% Yao Zhao. Following these transfers, PUDA now owns only 45.9% (90% of 51%) of Shanxi Coal, about half of the 90% PUDA owned before Chairman Zhao began his shenanigans.

PUDA’s 2009 and 2010 Audited Financials can No Longer be Relied Upon

Since Ming Zhao stole 99% of Shanxi Coal in 2009, the operating company’s 2009 and 2010 financials should not have been consolidated into PUDA’s 2009 and 2010 audited financials. PUDA’s audited 2009 and 2010 financials can thus no longer be relied upon. For 2011, even though Zhao recently returned 45.9% of Shanxi Coal to PUDA through its 90% ownership of Puda Mining (the 51% owner of Shanxi Coal), Puda Mining’s 51% interest in Shanxi Coal is entirely pledged to CITIC.

PUDA Cannot Consolidate Shanxi Coal’s Financials in 2011 and Beyond

Since CITIC has 100% control of Shanxi Coal, via its 49% ownership plus 51% share pledge agreement including voting, veto and other control provisions, PUDA can no longer consolidate the financial results of this subsidiary (see SFAS 94 page 5 Section 4 link here (.pdf)). PUDA should record its stake in Shanxi Coal as a long-term investment on its balance sheet, valued at cost.

The damage done cannot be reversed. There is no way CITIC will give up their 49% of Shanxi Coal, 51% pledged shares, veto rights and other control provisions. Shanxi Coal owes CITIC over $761 million. Until this debt is repaid (if ever), the share pledge and other control provisions will certainly persist. PUDA is now just a holding company with a minority 45.9% investment in a coal operation in China it does not control, with the added overhead of being a public company (for now at least) in the U.S.


What is PUDA’s Investment in Shanxi Coal Worth?

The book value of PUDA on 12/31/10 was $251 million. Shanxi Coal owns all the mining assets, coal washing plants, cash and receivables and bears the obligation to repay the debt reflected on PUDA’s 12/31/10 balance sheet. The 12/31/10 book value of Shanxi Coal is therefore roughly the same as the 12/31/10 book value of PUDA. I need only to deduct an estimated RMB184 million ($27.7 million) in placement fees and accrued interest on the CITIC loan from the book value of Shanxi Coal, bringing its book value down to $223.3 million. Since PUDA shareholders now only own 45.9% of Shanxi Coal, multiplying $223.3 million by 45.9% gives a value of $102.5 million for PUDA’s Shanxi Coal investment. Dividing $102.5 million that by 30.02 million PUDA shares outstanding at 12/31/10 values PUDA at $3.41 per share.

There is significant risk of default due to the very high leverage and servicing cost of the $530.3 million 14.5% debt of Shanxi Coal. Annual interest and fees on the loan total $76.9 million USD, more than twice times the $34 million EBIT PUDA generated from operations in 2010. Even if Shanxi Coal can grow its profit by 80% in 2011 (as CFO Laby Wu claimed here) to $61.2 million, this growth is insufficient to cover 2011’s $76.9 million interest expense implying Shanxi Coal may incur an operating loss in 2011.

Shanxi Coal is now racing to dramatically increase coal production and profitability from its mines before it defaults on the massive debt load. A default could force the transfer of the pledged shares to CITIC and result in a total loss for PUDA’s U.S. investors. Given the risks, I believe PUDA deserves to be valued at a discount to the $3.41 value of its Shanxi Coal investment.

Apparently, CITIC agrees with me, since the $37.12 million price CITIC paid for their 49% of Shanxi Coal divided by 19.82 million PUDA shares outstanding at the end of the third quarter (when the acquisition occurred) equals only a $1.91 per share valuation.

The average of the valuation CITIC paid ($1.91) and the book value of PUDA’s investment in Shanxi Coal ($3.41) is $2.66. Considering the 2009 and 2010 audited financials can no longer be relied upon, and more importantly, the complete lack of internal control that allowed Chairman Zhao to first steal the company, then sell half the company (pocketing the proceeds) and then pledge the other half of the company to a Chinese PE fund while piling on $530.3 million of 14.5% debt, I strongly believe $2.66 is the most this stock is worth today.

Note: I would like to thank GeoInvesting LLC for obtaining official copies of all the ownership, loan and share pledge records that I cited and linked in this report.

Disclosure: I am short PUDA.
5 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:44:04

http://labemp.files.wordpress.co ... -on-sep-10-2009.pdf
轉讓文件

http://labemp.files.wordpress.co ... -on-jul-29-2010.pdf
http://labemp.files.wordpress.co ... -on-jan-26-2011.pdf
抵押文件

http://labemp.files.wordpress.co ... wnership-record.pdf
工商資料,都話亞果份審計報告是拿到的...
6 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:47:15

http://www.abbeyspanier.com/cases-overview/370-puda-coal-inc
Puda Coal, Inc.

ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP, REPRESENTING INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED PUDA COAL, INC., ANNOUNCES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND SEEKS TO RECOVER LOSSES

Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Puda Coal, Inc. ("Puda" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PUDA - News), between November 13, 2009, and April 11, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Puda and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Puda describes itself as a leading supplier of premium high grade cleaned coal used to produce coke for steel manufacturing in China.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Among other things, the complaint alleges: (i) that, prior to the beginning of the Class Period, certain of the individual defendants fraudulently transferred Puda's ownership interest to defendant Ming Zhao; (ii) that Puda was nothing more than a shell company during the Class Period; (iii) that Puda's reported operating results and financial condition were materially overstated; (iv) that Puda's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were materially false and misleading; and (v) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and growth.

On April 8, 2011, Puda issued a press release announcing that it was currently reviewing the allegations regarding improper share transactions by defendant Ming Zhao, which were published in an article entitled "Puda Coal Chairman Secretly Sold Half the Company and Pledged the Other Half to Chinese PE Investors". In reaction to the article and the Company's press release, shares of the Company's stock declined more than 34% on April 8, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On April 11, 2011, Puda announced that it had launched a full investigation into the allegations raised in the article alleging various unauthorized transactions in the shares of a subsidiary company, Shanxi Coal. The April 11, 2011 press release noted that, "[a]lthough the investigation is in its preliminary stages, evidence supports the allegation that there were transfers by Mr. Zhao in subsidiary ownership that were inconsistent with disclosure made by the Company in its public securities filings. Mr. Zhao has agreed to a voluntarily [sic] leave of absence as Chairman of the Board of the Company until the investigation is complete."

In response to the above announcement, trading in the Company's stock was halted on April 11, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Puda during the Class Period (the "Class").

If you would like more information about this case please contact:

Nancy Kaboolian
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com

James S. Burrell, II
jburrell@abbeyspanier.com
7 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:47:27

http://www.pudacoalinc.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
網都無埋
8 : GS(14)@2012-02-25 13:48:20

http://www.businessweek.com/news ... lleges-in-suit.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2 ... USTRE81L1H620120223
提告資料
9 : greatsoup38(830)@2012-02-25 18:21:37

http://www.21cbh.com/HTML/2012-2-24/yNNDE3XzQwNDUyNQ.html
[ 普大煤業負責人回應稱,該起糾紛緣於公司私有化過程中未能與股東達成一致所致,並稱公司目前已在美國應訴 ]

美國證券交易委員會(下稱「SEC」)日前在曼哈頓聯邦法院提起訴訟,指控在美上市的中國煤礦公司普大煤業的兩名高管涉嫌侵吞公司資產。這是SEC調查在美上市中資公司會計違規行為的最新一起案例。

SEC稱,普大煤業董事長趙明和前CEO朱立平企圖在2009年9月將該公司間接持有的山西普大煤業集團有限公司(下稱「山西煤業」)90%的股權秘密轉至自己名下,並在2010年將山西煤業股權轉給私募股權基金中信信託。

昨日,針對《第一財經日報》記者提出「是否承認掏空上市公司」的問題,普大煤業負責人回應稱,目前尚不便對此表態,要等待美國法院的審判結果出來後再做定論。該人士還稱,該起糾紛緣於公司私有化過程中未能與股東達成一致所致,並稱公司目前已在美國應訴。

一位投行人士昨日接受本報採訪時表示,按照美國主板市場的規定,上市公司管理層可以進行私有化,但前提是必須向SEC報批,同時發佈公告進行披露。但普大煤業顯然未按規定程序操作。

2011年4月,署名為「Alfred Little」的作者在博客上發表文章,指出趙明為融資收購,將該公司在中國的運營實體山西煤業的49%股權出售並且抵押剩下的51%股權,使普大煤業成為空殼,且未對美國投資者就上述交易進行披露。一時間,普大煤業的資產騰挪成為市場關注的焦點。

在SEC此次對簿公堂之前,普大煤業已在美國資本市場做空中國概念股風暴中因同樣原因「中招」。

普大煤業於2009年在紐約證交所上市,但在2011年退市,主營洗煤業務。該公司在中國的運營實體山西煤業則成立於1995年,主營煤炭開採和煤化工業務。目前擁有總資產近60億元,下轄成員企業12家,煤炭資源總儲量超10億噸,井田面積50餘平方公里,煤炭產能930萬噸。

而普大煤業登陸紐交所的2009年,正是山西煤炭資源重組風起云湧的時候。這一年,山西省政府出台煤炭資源整合政策,要求以省內的八大國有煤炭集團為主導,整合兼併規模較小的煤礦,而後者多以民營小礦為主。

作為美國上市公司,山西煤業被山西省政府確定為具有兼併重組主體資格的重點民營企業。而隨之而來的則是為兼併而進行的融資問題。

有接近普大煤業的人士告訴本報,為了在國內籌集資金做併購,趙明需要將本屬於上市公司的境內實體,變成自己直接所有,以便槓桿融資。

為此,普大煤業進行了一系列股權騰挪。

2007年,普大煤業通過其間接控股的山西普太物資公司獲得了山西煤業90%的註冊資本,山西煤業成為了中外合資公司。隨後,該公司的煤礦等實體資產幾乎全部轉至趙明名下。隨後,趙明在2010年分兩次將山西煤業全部股權轉讓給了中信信託。而在美國上市的普大煤業也成為了名副其實的空殼。完成這些交易後,普大煤業於2011年在美國以私有化的方式退市。

因此,Alfred Little在博文中指出:「趙明賣空了普大煤業在中國境內的資產,把一家美國公眾公司的資產變成了其私有財產,這意味著對美國投資者而言,普大煤業什麼都不剩了。」

但普大煤業一位盧姓負責人接受本報採訪時表示,在去年美國資本市場開始做空中國概念股後,公司即開始著手私有化。但由於公司股東對公司提出的要約收購價格看法不一。因此,部分希望獲得更高價格的股東即以該公司股權問題為由向SEC投訴,後者隨即將公司告上法庭。

「私有化過程中自然有討價還價,分歧很正常;有些股東想通過起訴把收購價格抬得更高,」該負責人說,「但我們美國的律師也已經按照當地法律應訴,希望達到一個更合理的價格。」
10 : 鱷不群(1248)@2012-02-26 23:17:08

我也忘記了這回事


http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/ ... AIN&lang=ZH&sa2p=2&
這筆數廉署應該查查
11 : P4EVER(23901)@2012-03-03 08:56:38

Hello GREATSOUP,

I hope you speak english, since I do not speak mandarin (unfortunately).

I've noticed that you lately posted many info about Puda Inc. and KSE. I hate do admit that it was really interesting to read it.

I was wondering if you are a Puda Inc. shareholder? or if you are doing it just for research purposes.

Anyway, if you are if you are interested, I could give you some more pieces of info about this story. You did an incredibly good job at summarizing what happened with Triumph Fund A, and how Ming Zhao was able to gain access to the HK market (by mean of a reverse merger ... the company was then renamed KSE).

I have some interesting info on Triumph Fund A1, and recent resignations of two CITIC executives from King Stone Energy
I really hope that you are interested,

maybe we could mutually profit from getting in touch.

have a nice week end

To contact me you can drop me a private message on this forum. of you can contact me at helathystocks@gmail.com
12 : greatsoup38(830)@2012-03-03 18:44:27

I have sent a mail to you, have you received yet?
13 : P4EVER(23901)@2012-03-03 21:32:22

received! ... are you the same person ? .... greatsoup38 = greatsoup ?

same person ... 2 aliases? ...
14 : greatsoup38(830)@2012-03-03 22:00:42

greatsoup38 is another alias in this forum...They are same person
15 : P4EVER(23901)@2012-03-03 22:29:51

I just sent you an e-mail
16 : GS(14)@2012-03-05 22:13:04

http://www.ecitic.com/UserFiles/ ... x/zxjxhjmt1tjxx.pdf
不知從哪來的
17 : GS(14)@2012-03-05 22:13:16

http://www.81law.com/news/sa_news_aid_2454/
SEC指控普大煤業董事長及前CEO借空殼公司欺詐投資人
18 : P4EVER(23901)@2012-03-13 00:51:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIbOp0w6
Is Shanxi Puda Coal issuing misleading PRs in the PRC to restore its reputation?

山西普大煤业煤炭在中国,以恢复其声誉发出误导性陈述?
金山 能源 前話 事人 美證 交會 侵吞 資產
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=277925

TVB幕後話事人 盛傳已久終浮面 周顯

1 : GS(14)@2015-04-24 12:34:06

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/fin ... mnist/en30_en30.htm
【明報專訊】離開了香港幾天,回來看到的其中一單新聞,是陳國強邀請「華人文化傳媒娛樂投資有限公司」入股電視廣播(0511)的26%控股公司,這家公司的控制人,就是中共黨員,曾任上海市政府副秘書長、市委辦公廳主任的黎瑞剛。

  老實說,在看這篇報道之前,我並不知道黎瑞剛的身分,但是其名字則聽到很久了。很簡單,一直以來,市場上都是說TVB的真正控制人是黎瑞剛,我還以為他是一名黨官,一直想寫一段關於這個說法的文章,但並沒有翻查到資料,趕稿時,自然也想不起寫這個故事了。想不到,原來黎瑞剛並非黨官,而是中央政府屬下的傳媒投資公司的老闆。

總之,黎瑞剛是TVB真正控制人的這個說法,早在一年多前,我已經聽到過啦,如今只是正式「閹正」入股而已,沒有什麼值得驚奇的地方。

大家樂降檔 大快活應升檔

我很少看電視,一天偶然看到大家樂(0341)那個「魚毛」廣告,不期然想起之前青姐為它賣的那個玩慳錢廉價的廣告,我看後心裏嘀咕﹕「以前大家樂的廣告,永遠把形象打高一個檔次,為什麼現時居然把它形象做得比其價錢還低了一個檔次,專玩抵食呢?」

近來沒有碰到大快活(0052)的Dennis(羅開揚),如果見到他,一定會同他說﹕「喂!大家樂打低一個檔次,如果我係你,就打高一個檔次,專Sell自己(大快活)畀大家樂高級,可能大有商機!」

[周顯 投資二三事]
TVB 幕後 事人 盛傳 已久 久終 浮面 周顯
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=289885

阿澤宗堯一人一票爭做話事人《選老頂》借黑諷今

1 : GS(14)@2016-03-05 01:26:33

由杜汶澤監製兼演出、邱禮濤導演的三級電影《選老頂》(原名《選老坐》),被指是借黑社會一人一票選坐館,藉此「借黑諷今」。昨日公開了的一條宣傳片就清楚見到這場勾心鬥角的黑道選舉,精采程度不下於早前新界東立法會議員補選,泛民的楊岳橋鬥建制派的周浩鼎。



■黃秋生飾演的神爺神的地方,是他懂得引用甘迺迪的名句。

■戲中一幕講蠱惑仔都有一人一票,香港人均被比下去。

■男神王宗堯(右)在戲中跟洪卓立有感情線。



二次創作甘迺迪名句

不過黑社會之爭自然少不免有粗口、女人同刀光劍影的斬人場面,而阿澤更有場跟艷女肉搏床戲,見到他演得異常落力。《選》片在拳頭跟枕頭背後,有不少對白都充滿睿智及令人反思,黃德斌飾演的警官一語就道出選老坐是假選舉「選乜鬼啫,來來去去咪又係嗰3個老鬼話事」,而與王宗堯爭老頂位的杜汶澤,當着一班蠱惑仔話「要選一個話事人,點解得9個人有投票權,咁不如唔好選,要投就個個都有得投」,簡直說出香港人的心底話。最抵死還是作為幕後黑手神爺黃秋生話「唔好問正興(社團名字)可以為你做啲乜嘢,要問你可以為正興做啲乜嘢」,完全是已故美國總統甘迺迪名句的二次創作。如果電影《十年》是香港未來的驚世預言,《選》片就是香港現今困局的寫照。另外,在《選》片海報,三位有份爭選老頂的杜汶澤、王宗堯及黑仔姜皓文均在其中,而操控整個社團選舉、飾演神爺的黃秋生頭像就放在背後,寓意他幕後黑手身份。撰文:李森





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/entertainment/art/20160304/19515237
阿澤 宗堯 一人 一票 爭做 事人 選老 老頂 借黑 黑諷 諷今
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=296830

特朗普大搞家族政治第一女兒女婿或成白宮話事人

1 : GS(14)@2017-01-19 08:07:56

【特朗普就職 家庭篇】美國新任總統特朗普明日就職,出身商賈的他,沒有顯赫的政治家族撐腰,但甫涉足政壇,即沿用經營家族生意的一套,實行家族政治,由競選以至籌組新政府,處處可見他女兒伊萬卡(Ivanka)與女婿庫什納(Jared Kushner)的身影,後者已被委任為白宮高級顧問。有輿論甚至相信庫什納夫婦將成為白宮的實際話事人。



現年34歲的伊萬卡是公認最得特朗普歡心的掌上明珠,自特朗普前年宣佈參選,她和庫什納一直擔任制訂競選策略和預算等舉足輕重的角色。在去年7月共和黨全國大會上,伊萬卡大談修改勞工法例、爭取婦女同工同酬等,成為特朗普面向女性選民的重要橋樑;8月特朗普公佈兒童政綱,部份更出自伊萬卡手筆,角色遠比演說被指抄襲的特朗普夫人梅拉尼婭(Melania)重要。


伊萬卡致電議員傾減稅

儘管伊萬卡至今未獲特朗普指派公職,她已宣佈不再參與家族生意和個人時裝品牌營運,此舉既為擔任白宮高級顧問的丈夫避嫌,亦被指是為自己將在白宮身居要職鋪路,而她本人亦表明對教育、兒童、婦女創業及就業議題充滿熱誠。伊萬卡在新舊政府交接期間已致電國會議員,討論為保障兒童和減稅立法,又與關注氣候變化的影星里安納度狄卡比奧會面,令外界猜測她或會成為特朗普的「氣候沙皇」。特朗普對36歲女婿庫什納亦寵信有加,在競選中命他負責數碼策略、協調特朗普接觸外國領袖等,上周任命他為白宮高級顧問,專責中東和貿易事務,並擔當白宮與商界聯絡的中間人。他的影響力甚至足以改變特朗普的人事任命,如原本獲委任為過渡團隊主席的新澤西州州長克里斯蒂(Chris Christie),有傳就是因早年當檢察官時起訴庫什納的父親,令他最終被攆出過渡團隊。


料代履行第一夫人職務

美國有線新聞網絡(CNN)記者霍塞恩(Anushay Hossain)認為,庫什納和伊萬卡儼如華盛頓最具影響力的夫婦,連候任總統高級顧問康韋(Kellyanne Conway)、候任白宮幕僚長普里伯斯(Reince Priebus)和候任首席智囊及高級顧問班農(Steve Bannon)等親信也望塵莫及。「梅拉尼婭和特朗普堅持盡量少花時間留在華盛頓,令伊萬卡和庫什納將成為實際上的美國第一夫婦,行使比史上任何第一女兒和女婿更多權力。」就算庫什納的任命最終被否決、伊萬卡沒有被委以官方職銜,他倆仍會在特朗普身邊出謀獻策。相比下,梅拉尼婭異常低調,不會隨特朗普遷入白宮,只會留居在紐約照顧幼子,外界相信伊萬卡將代她履行第一夫人大部份職務。而白宮東翼的第一夫人辦公室,則有傳將改為第一家庭辦公室,以配合「家天下」的新政府,但特朗普團隊否認。美國有線新聞網絡/《蘋果》資料室


【特朗普前任妻子】

【伊雲娜Ivana Trump】■特朗普在1977年迎娶捷克出生前滑雪運動員兼模特兒伊雲娜,誕兩子一女,1992年因男方出軌而離婚。

【梅普爾斯 Marla Maples】■特朗普與女演員梅普爾斯在1993年結婚,婚姻僅維持6年,育有一女。




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20170119/19901114
特朗普 特朗 大搞 家族 政治 第一 女兒 女婿 或成 白宮 事人
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=323221

華宣示話事人身份vs印度甘當制衡角色

1 : GS(14)@2017-07-07 02:42:04

【學者分析】中印衝突兩國軍方態度頗為強硬,但兩國的領導人未有評論。有學者分析指,中國暫時的回應只是外交部層面,相信仍想和平處理事件,認為衝突是否和平落幕,將要看印度總理莫迪的態度。一旦莫迪態度強硬,局勢就會相當危險。國家主席習近平及莫迪將在本月7日參加二十國集團(G20)峯會,外交部沒有透露兩人會否見面。


疑報復印度缺席一帶一路論壇

中國南亞學會顧問王宏緯指出,根據印度外交官員撰寫的回憶資料,印度早在1987年就想透過在邊境挑起事端,向中國宣戰,一報1962年中印之戰的戰敗之仇。不過,當時印度認為軍力不足,故中止計劃。在今次而言,北京亦視衝突為印度單方面撕毀中印邊界協議,《環球時報》前日引內地學者指,近年來,印度面臨的國內國際環境相對較好,因此野心膨脹。加上美國與印度的防務合作把美印的關係發展到一個新的戰略高度,其背後存在着制衡中國的因素,印度也甘心充當這個角色。印度媒體分析指,中國之所以在戰略用地洞朗地區修建軍用道路,其中一個可能性是報復印度在5月時,曾高調拒絕出席中國舉辦的首屆「一帶一路」高峯論壇,故此希望增加與印度的談判籌碼,提升在印度及不丹的影響力,宣示中國才是亞洲的話事人。中印曾在邊境的阿克賽欽、藏南和達旺等地起過領土爭議,並在1962年發生過中印戰爭,戰爭約爆發了一個月,最終中國在佔盡優勢之下,突然宣佈單方面停火,最終中國得到阿克賽欽,印度則保有藏南和達旺。中央社/環球網




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20170705/20079263
宣示 事人 身份 vs 印度 甘當 制衡 角色
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=338283

股票掌故 | 香港股票資訊 | 神州股票資訊 | 台股資訊 | 博客好文 | 文庫舊文 | 香港股票資訊 | 第一財經 | 微信公眾號 | Webb哥點將錄 | 港股專區 | 股海挪亞方舟 | 動漫遊戲音樂 | 好歌 | 動漫綜合 | RealBlog | 測試 | 強國 | 潮流潮物 [Fashion board] | 龍鳳大茶樓 | 文章保管庫 | 財經人物 | 智慧 | 世界之大,無奇不有 | 創業 | 股壇維基研發區 | 英文 | 財經書籍 | 期權期指輪天地 | 郊遊遠足 | 站務 | 飲食 | 國際經濟 | 上市公司新聞 | 美股專區 | 書藉及文章分享區 | 娛樂廣場 | 波馬風雲 | 政治民生區 | 財經專業機構 | 識飲色食 | 即市討論區 | 股票專業討論區 | 全球政治經濟社會區 | 建築 | I.T. | 馬後砲膠區之圖表 | 打工仔 | 蘋果專欄 | 雨傘革命 | Louis 先生投資時事分享區 | 地產 |
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019