ZKIZ Archives


美證交會起訴「四大」在華分公司及大華拒絕配合中概股欺詐調查

http://wallstreetcn.com/node/20350

美國證券交易委員會(SEC)12月3日宣佈,自當日起向全球四大會計師事務所(「四大」)普華永道(PWC)、德勤(DTT)、畢馬威(KPMG)和安永(Ernst & Young)的中國分公司及大華會計師事務所(原「立信大華」)提出起訴,因五家公司拒絕為SEC對中國公司涉嫌欺詐美國投資者的調查提供審計資料及相關文件,違反了美國證券法。

SEC聲明,大華、普華永道中天、德勤華永、畢馬威華振、安永華明五家公司違反了美國《證券法》及「薩班斯-奧克斯利法案」(Sarbanes-Oxley Act)針對國外公共審計機構的規定,未按要求向SEC提供所有在美交易公司的審計文件。
 
聲明指
 
過去數月,SEC調查員已經努力向這些審計公司獲取文件。索取審計資料屬於SEC對九家中國在美公開交易公司潛在不當行為的調查行動。這些公司在此類調查中拒不合作。
 
SEC稱,行政法法官將安排聆訊,對五家審計機構的補償性制裁措施做出判決。
 
SEC此次集體起訴四大及中國知名審計公司大華顯示出,美國監管機構打擊中概股欺詐的整風運動遠未結束,解決中美兩國監管法律衝突勢在必行。
 
2011年4月,SEC主席夏皮羅致信國會,稱要嚴查反向併購中國公司違法行為。
 
同年5月17日,廈門金融軟件公司東南融通涉嫌造假在紐交所停牌,負責該公司審計事務的德勤於同月22日請辭審計工作,並披露東南融通財務作假及德勤審計受人為因素干擾。
 
6月初,調研機構Muddy Waters又指責在加拿大上市的中國林業公司嘉漢林業(Sino-Forest)虛報財務數據與實際資產。
 
嘉漢林業的審計方安永同樣面臨加拿大監管機構的起訴。加拿大安大略省證監會(OSC)稱,安永審計工作不充分,未能證實嘉漢林業最重要的資產是否存在及資產所有權。
 
商業週刊,安永今年12月3日已同意支付1.176億美元,與嘉漢林業的相關加拿大集體訴訟達成和解。
 
眼看中概股醜聞之風愈演愈烈,SEC當月9日發佈投資者公報,公開說明為何SEC勒令包括中國企業在內的6家反向併購公司暫停交易,警告投資反向併購公司存在巨大風險。
 
2012年5月9日,SEC指控德勤華永拒交東南融通涉嫌欺詐的財務資料。
 
德勤華永次日聲明稱,此次淪為SEC被告源於中美兩國法律存在衝突與差異,因為據中國法律及監管機構具體規定,未經中國政府許可,中國會計師事務所不得直接向任何外國監管機構提供文件。
 
德勤發言人Lauren Mistretta表示
 
不幸的是,兩國還未能發現這類問題的共同立場。但我們仍希望可以達成外交協議,並準備以我們所能的一切方式為這種努力提供幫助。
 
安永華明方面也希望「中美監管機構可以達成一致」。畢馬威華振稱SEC的起訴「涉及到中美之間需要解決的一個問題」。

美證 交會 起訴 四大 在華 分公司 大華 拒絕 配合 中概 概股 欺詐 調查
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=40544

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

李嘉誠投資人造蛋公司 美證交會查假帳

1 : GS(14)@2016-08-20 11:04:29

【明報專訊】彭博引述知情人士稱,美國證交會(SEC)正調查長和系主席李嘉誠私人投資旗艦維港投資(Horizons Ventures)有份入股的美國人造蛋公司Hampton Creek,是否涉及購買自家的素食蛋黃醬催谷銷量造假帳。

涉購自家蛋黃醬谷銷量

匿名知情人士稱,證交會正調查Hampton Creek是否不適當計入以公司資金購買的蛋黃醬收入。證交會的初步調查並不意味該公司將面臨法律行動。彭博社本月初首次報道Hampton Creek早在2014年開始購買自己的蛋黃醬,直至本年也有指示員工到超市購買自己的產品。該公司稱,自購產品是要驗證產品質量,又向彭博提供質量檢訂採購表格。不過彭博社稱,這些橫跨2014年3月至2015年1月的3900項數據,並未包括Hampton Creek承包商的幾百宗購入。

該公司創辦人Josh Tetrick發聲明稱,獲悉今次非正式調查,公司將交代事實,對照彭博的不準確報道。該公司稱,回購產品僅佔總銷售額的0.12%。

Hampton Creek尚未上市,但曾對外集資,因此證交會有權調查。Hampton Creek過往已集資超過2.2億美元。知情人士稱,Tetrick上周向員工稱,準備下月進行新一輪募資,使公司估值達到11億美元。Hampton Creek在2014年底曾向風投機構Founders Fund、維港投資、Khosla Ventures,以至Salesforce.com聯合創辦人Marc Benioff和facebook聯合創辦人Eduardo Saverin集資9000萬美元。

(彭博社)

[國際金融]


來源: http://www.mpfinance.com/fin/dai ... 6090&issue=20160820
李嘉誠 李嘉 投資 人造 公司 美證 交會 假帳
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=306558

芝交所售中資 傳美證交會叫停

1 : GS(14)@2017-10-01 20:12:43

【明報專訊】糾纏多時的芝加哥證券交易所(Chicago Stock Exchange)出售計劃或失敗告吹。《華爾街日報》引述知情人士稱,美國證交會(SEC)主席克萊頓(Jay Clayton)與白宮商討後,決定凍結旗下委員準備批准芝交所出售給中資財團的計劃。

美證交主席 5月由特朗普任命

由重慶財信集團牽頭的中資財團,去年提出打算以2000萬美元,收購芝交所母公司CHX Holdings,並獲對方同意。財信尋求收購CHX Holdings的20%股份,餘下股份由其他中國和美國投資者購買。總部位於重慶的財信集團,主要從事銀行業、旅遊業及污水處理等。克萊頓由特朗普任命,今年5月接掌證交會。《華爾街日報》引述知情人士稱,克萊頓一直面臨兩黨議員要求他阻止交易的壓力,一些在貿易問題上與中國有過衝突的白宮官員,亦敦促克萊頓阻止旗下委員批准這項交易。由證交會主席阻止準備批准的交易,情况實屬罕見。白宮發言人稱,特朗普政府尊重證交會的獨立性,不會對證交會發號施令。

證交會目前繼續對這宗交易進行審查。兩名知情人士稱,證交會上周已要求芝交所回答十幾個具體問題,包括參與這項交易的中、美投資者用於收購的資金來源,並要求芝交所在10月2日前答覆。芝交所交易量不到美國股市總交易量的0.5%,經營存在困難,一直尋找買家。

(綜合報道)

[國際金融]


來源: http://www.mpfinance.com/fin/dai ... 1968&issue=20170930
芝交 交所 所售 中資 傳美 美證 交會 叫停
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=341624

美證交會首告ICO公司 涉詐騙眾籌

1 : GS(14)@2017-10-09 03:20:19

【本報訊】美國證券交易委員會SEC起訴Maksim Zaslavskiy,指其兩間公司在ICO首次公開募幣中,涉誤導及詐騙投資者,出售未經註冊的證券資產。被SEC起訴的兩間公司,分別為REcoin Group Foundation以及DRC World,前者是以區塊鏈技為主的地產公司,後者則為一間設有鑽石級會員的公司。兩間公司均以ICO為名作眾籌,但其實沒有實際投資,並向投資者作出高回報承諾。SEC表示,兩間公司聲稱集資200萬至400萬美元,但實際只得30萬美元。另外,比特幣中國昨日正式停止交易,在中午12時關閉所有交易功能。至於火幣網等平台,交易會延至10月底才關閉。火幣網昨日比特幣報24,494人民幣,海外bitcoin則報4,212美元,升1.2%,重上4,200美元關口。




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20171001/20169616
美證 交會 首告 ICO 公司 詐騙 眾籌
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=342150

餐廳點評軟件ICO 美證交煞停

1 : GS(14)@2017-12-18 03:38:40

【明報專訊】美國證交會(SEC)指餐廳點評軟件Munchee,沒有向SEC註冊備案,不具備證券發行的資格,煞停了該軟件價值1500萬美元的首次代幣發行(ICO)。《金融時報》稱,SEC的舉動釐清了ICO部分具爭議的法律問題,反映監管機構正尋求對ICO市場施以更大的控制權。

釐清ICO爭議法律問題

總部位於三藩市的Munchee,原本計劃通過出售Mun代幣向市場集資。該公司曾向投資者表示,Mun是一種「公共事業」代幣,稍後可在軟件內購買商品和餐飲服務,並不會牴觸聯邦證券法。不過證交會表示,Munchee引導投資者相信代幣的價值會增加,並且可在二級市場交易,因此將它們分類為證券,證券必須向證交會註冊。

證交會解釋,投資者可以合理預期投資Mun的回報,但前提是該公司先要在SEC註冊,成為證券公司。Munchee已同意停止ICO,並向投資者返還款項。Munchee的代幣銷售頁面已被刪除。證交會表示,與新公司IPO審批流程大同小異,ICO應該是透明的。

證交會並不負責監管比特幣,但已就大量資金流入比特幣及其他虛擬貨幣市場發出警告,稱這火爆但缺乏監管的金融領域,對個人投資者存在巨大風險。

(綜合報道)

[國際金融]


來源: http://www.mpfinance.com/fin/dai ... 5170&issue=20171213
餐廳 點評 軟件 ICO 美證 證交 交煞 煞停
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=345364

美證交會收緊虛擬幣交易規管

1 : GS(14)@2018-03-12 02:05:00

【明報專訊】美國監管機構收緊對虛擬貨幣資產交易的規管。美國證交會(SEC)表示,若一些平台提供相當於證劵的虛擬資產買賣或存託服務,即符合聯邦證券法的交易所定義,必須向證交會註冊。消息傳出後,比特幣資產跌破1萬美元關口。

比特幣跌破1萬美元

證交會憂慮,許多網上交易平台自稱為「交易所」,可能令投資者誤以為它們已向證交會註冊、受到規管或符合監管的標準。證交會早前已收緊了對首次代幣發行(ICO)的監管,向懷疑違反證券法的機構發出傳票,恐部分ICO正為一些不存在的業務集資。

Blockchain Capital合伙人Spencer Bogart稱,證交會繼續在證券和非證券之間劃定界線,但沒有點明哪些虛擬資產相當於證券。美國對於證券的定義,傾向遵循1946年美國最高法院案件的「Howey測試」。該裁決認為,證券涉及將金錢投資於普通企業,投資者預期利潤主要來自他人的努力。普遍分析認為,證交會的目標應該不是衝着比特幣,而是其他規模較小的替代幣(alt-coins),以減少 ICO詐騙。

日勒令兩交易所停業1月

法律界人士稱,流動性對許多虛擬貨幣投資者相當重要,證交會收緊規管可能會減少了取得虛擬貨幣的途徑,令虛幣資產的價格波動性增加。市場對政府監管的擔憂,令比特幣由12月的接近2萬美元歷史高位,下跌了約五成。此外,日本金融廳昨要求7家虛擬貨幣交易所改善保安措施,其中兩家勒令停業1個月。

(CNBC)

[國際金融]


來源: http://www.mpfinance.com/fin/dai ... 2091&issue=20180309
美證 交會 收緊 虛擬 交易 規管
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=349653

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