Homepage
PR Newswire
29-08-2013, 06:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-08-2013, 06:55 AM by Greenrookie.)
(28-08-2013, 06:58 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: Correction: 莆田市工商行政管理局 Report fabricated?
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=89
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=88
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=87
Edit; Original source: http://www.pt.fjaic.gov.cn/html/201308281743052851.html
Related (?) Notice: http://www.pt.fjaic.gov.cn/html/201304241637085145.html
Putian Daziran Vegetables Auditor's Reports Glaucus provided are, at best, leaked illegally, at worse fake.
This doesn't provide any conclusive evidence yet, still waiting for CMZ's official reply.
Actually, someone show me the link too.
There is no mention of it being leaked, or fake.
t simply means: the bureau has been alerted by minzhong that there are some using its name to release info about minzhong, it states that all info on companies obtained legally through the bureau will have a offical stamp on it.
1)the bureau did not mentioned anything about not releasing any data on CMZ, on pinpointing any forgery on Glaucus part, it is like a motherhood statement pending a complaint from CMZ.
2) Supplementary evidence from Glaucus is obtained from the auditing company of CMZ not from the bureau, and the auditor report does has the auditing company stamp. Auditing documents need not come from the bureau
3) The application of foreign enterprise status which must indeed come from the bureau SAIC, does have the legal stamp on it.
4) If you read the edge singapore article on glaucus few years ago, they mention they have been getting info from SAIC since they deal "CMR" a deadly blow, they mention they will pleasantly surprised that SAIC will actually rather forthcoming with the info, CMZ is not the first time they use info from SAIC as bullets.
--------------------------------------
But my thoughts were:
The main "attacks" to me were about "supplier" and "customer" orders that were simply not there since pre-IPO time. If this is the case, how could GIC wash their hands off this? I mean I disagree with the agrument some of forummers here make about it being legitimate earlier on and that went on some acc fabrication run later on.
I am not surprised that s-chips might have accounts that are not "clean", inflated or simply pluck from the sky, but the question is now, what is the situation now? IF indon-food did make their due dilligence in site visits and scuttlebutting customers and competitors, could it be the dirt is in the past? Why do I ask this, I mean investors usually track current customers and suppliers more closely than IPO customers and suppliers, as the past is history. There are companies with hundreds or even thousand of customers and suppliers, and if one is talking about historical customers and suppliers too, how can one effectively tracked these unless there is some whistle blowing? One should do due dilligence with suppliers and customers listed at prospectus, but once they are listed, info about major customers and suppliers are updated at the whim and fancy of companies, some will have such info of new customers, but whether existing customers are gone or new suppliers come to picture, such info are not available even at the footnotes of their AR.
Just trying to learn as much as possible from this episode, not vested.
