China Minzhong Food Corporation

[Wildreamz]

If their cash allows, a better move would be to issue share buyback. Or their substantial institutional investors like Templeton and/or Indofood can do significant share purchase.

Even a GO now may not be a bad move.

[CY09]

A share buyback is possible given that they have 1 Bil of RMB cash. But they will only be allowed to purchase up to 10% of the total no of shares. But this I believe will be a strong enough signal to the market.

[Temperament]

I have a different take.

I think it's highly possible we're attracting crooks rather than honest Chinese nationals who turns into crooks because of the temptations (plus the high chance of getting away with their crime) when they list here...

Perhaps I come from a different generation. Whether it's $100 or $1Mil or even $1Bil (if it's even possible), I don't feel any urge to take what's not mine.... or even take short-cuts that's not legally, ethically, morally right. I think it's more fun to earn it thro' the hard way, by myself...

I don't disagree that the system attracts crooks. Even if they are not crooks to start with, they may be tempted to become crooks. That is what makes the system so bad.

As for not taking $1B, I want to be intellectually honest with myself. I can guarantee that I will not take money up to $100m. With money up to $1B, the most I can say is unlikely but cannot guarantee.

It is easy to say I won't do this, do that under certain circumstances. But when really put to the test, who can really guarantee? If I put Helen of Troy dressed sexily on your lap and she moves on to touch the right spots, can you truly guarantee that you won't be tempted? I can only speak for myself. My honest answer is ... I am not sure. Having said that, it is easier to waive off money temptations when one is already financially secure. When one has a simple lifestyle that is sufficient with 1m, another extra 1m does not matter. But when it comes to women ...

i think i can only say we are all human; i will never believe anyone (myself included) that says, "i can guarantee you, i won't do this or that". Though we all have our beliefs and principles in living our daily life.
"Only God knows before hand how i am going to behave under certain circumstances". But Christians have a belief that says, "GOD will not tempt his faithfuls beyond their endurance limit".

[touzi]

The first picture of the new industrial park has a very strange contrast.
Normally, the sky is very bright. In order to have a detailed sky, the ground details will be very dark. But, in this photo, both the sky and the ground buildings have very good details.

In picture 5, on the right of warehouse has a gray color building which I thought should appear in the first photo.

And, interestingly, the buildings have the english label "Minzhong organic food" rather than chinese??

If there is indeed any doctoring, I don't think it was out of ill intent. Physical things are the easiest to verify. To resort to such means at times like this is plain silly.

I noticed that Shenzhen was written as Shenzheng in some of the documents and some of the 2008 documents are still quite clear. By themselves not a big concern since typo error and good filing are entirely possible. However if there are other aspects that are doubtful then these will only cause their response to be less believable.

[yeokiwi]

Genuine Sales to Putian Vegetables: We have the relevant VAT invoices from
the PRC authorities to show sales to Putian Vegetables for the period in question.
Putian Vegetables has also provided us their tax filings for 2009 which shows that
their cost of goods sold was approximately RMB227.4 million. The legal
representative of Putian Vegetables has also confirmed the quantum of sales
made by our Group to Putian Vegetables for the period in question.

CMZ did not supply any official Daziran SAIC filings and tax filings even though there were claims that glaucus's copy is not official. The only official proof is a declaration letter by the legal representative of Daziran.

[Wildreamz]

I am feel more at ease now as the basic fraud allegations (fake assets, fake supplier, fake customer) are basically answered.

Looking forward to see how the world respond tomorrow.

[Greenrookie]

Next course of action is to sue Glaucus for damage... to rebuild investors confident.

We view the Report as damaging the value that we have created for shareholders over the years and are consulting our legal advisers on possible recourse. We will not hesitate to take legal action to defend our rights and reputation, including reporting any party to the authorities for possible breach of securities legislation.

Good rebuttal, point by point.

Now the ball is at Glaucus court.

But most importantly, how Mr. market react tomorrow.... exciting!

China Minzhong's Response:

Main Report: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Comp...eID=254770

Annex A, B, C, D: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Resp...eID=254771

Annex E: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Resp...eID=254772

Annex G: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Resp...eID=254773

Is Glaucus expected to serve a return shot?

IMO, the rebuttal is strong and enough, and they have the confidence to lift the trading halt.

The only qn is why they gave only 1 order to proof transaction take place in each year, why not every invoices for the year, maybe they consider the lawyer representative statements enough.

Nonetheless, congrats to investors, you might just see you money back

[freedom]

Genuine Sales to Putian Vegetables: We have the relevant VAT invoices from
the PRC authorities to show sales to Putian Vegetables for the period in question.
Putian Vegetables has also provided us their tax filings for 2009 which shows that
their cost of goods sold was approximately RMB227.4 million. The legal
representative of Putian Vegetables has also confirmed the quantum of sales
made by our Group to Putian Vegetables for the period in question.

CMZ did not supply any official Daziran SAIC filings and tax filings even though there were claims that glaucus's copy is not official.

Daziran is not a company owned by CMZ. It entirely depends whether Daziran wants to provide their SAIC or tax filings.

---

If Glaucus' claim was not proved correct, do analysts dropping coverage look stupid? Why can't they wait then drop coverage?

Or the analysts know something wrong with CMZ already?

[touzi]

Next course of action is to sue Glaucus for damage... to rebuild investors confident.

We view the Report as damaging the value that we have created for shareholders over the years and are consulting our legal advisers on possible recourse. We will not hesitate to take legal action to defend our rights and reputation, including reporting any party to the authorities for possible breach of securities legislation.

Don't waste time. Glaucus have already covered their behind.
--------
We are short sellers. We are biased. So are long investors. So is Minzhong. So are the banks that raised money for the Company. If you are invested(either long or short) in Minzhong, so are you. Just because we are biased does not mean that we are wrong. We, like everyone else, are entitled to our opinions and to the right to express such opinions in a public forum. We believe that the publication of our opinions and the underlying facts about the public companies we research is in the public interest.

You are reading a short-biased opinion piece. Obviously, we will make money if the price of Minzhong stock declines. This report and all statementscontained herein are the opinion of Glaucus Research Group California, LLC, and are not statements of fact.
---------

[opmi]

Next course of action is to sue Glaucus for damage... to rebuild investors confident.

We view the Report as damaging the value that we have created for shareholders over the years and are consulting our legal advisers on possible recourse. We will not hesitate to take legal action to defend our rights and reputation, including reporting any party to the authorities for possible breach of securities legislation.

Don't waste time. Glaucus have already covered their behind.
--------
We are short sellers. We are biased. So are long investors. So is Minzhong. So are the banks that raised money for the Company. If you are invested(either long or short) in Minzhong, so are you. Just because we are biased does not mean that we are wrong. We, like everyone else, are entitled to our opinions and to the right to express such opinions in a public forum. We believe that the publication of our opinions and the underlying facts about the public companies we research is in the public interest.

You are reading a short-biased opinion piece. Obviously, we will make money if the price of Minzhong stock declines. This report and all statementscontained herein are the opinion of Glaucus Research Group California, LLC, and are not statements of fact.
---------

the last para is to cover their asses for libel suits....