The JQW page is still up on lse with useful info.
State government complicit in theft? Sounds like the shareholder action group is being slowballed by the authorities. What does this tell us about their integrity?
China resolutions In case anyone missed it, the website is now up and runningwww.chinaresolutions.com
Re: Shareholder Group update JQW plc still remains live at Jersey Companies Registry.I have therefore written to the Registrar asking whether it will remain live indefinitely, or whether it remaining live is subject to conditions or time limits. Obviously from a shareholder point of view, it would be better to remain live indefinitely so as to frustrate the fraud.Alexa is interesting at present - in early September 2016 it was ranked 200+ in China, by end September it had risen to 120 in China, now it is 143. Coincidence - or does the roller coaster ride indicate that the ED's continue to manipulate the jqw.com internet footprint? (See my post 17-6-2016) The footprint maybe set up in September to anticipate JQW plc's dissolution, when that didn't happen it was reset again to minimise the footprint ?The highest reading at 120 was on 28th September 2016, just a couple of days before the likely dissolution. Maybe that had advance notice that it wasn't going to be dissolved.Bearing in mind the brazenly fraudulent actions of Mr Cai Yongde, Mr Chen Doacai and Mr Koo Wei Boon, I have also written to the Jersey Registrar asking whether consideration will be given to banning for life Mr Cai Yongde, Mr Chen Doacai and Mr Koo Wei Boon from ever being appointed directors of a Jersey registered company again. Obviously his writ will only run in Jersey, however official registration of such a ban could give a heads up to potential future investors worldwide that each of these gentlemen are fraudsters and should be treated as such.Mr Cai Yongde and Mr Chen Doacai have only been active in the PRC, so this may not be of immediate concern to them, however Mr Koo Wei Boon has previously worked at Ernst & Young in Hong Kong and KPMG in China, so such a ban may be of interest to him, and any future employer.Not always a good career move for an accountant to get involved in a fraud.All three of course remain active directors of Junde International Holdings Limited (JIL) in Hong Kong.That JIL continues is interesting. The JQW plc prospectus states:-The Group carries out its trading business through its subsidiaries in China. To enable the Group to seek investors from outside the PRC, the following group structure is in place: and then goes on to detail JQW plc and JIL and their subsidiaries.JIL therefore exists (and continues to exist) to seek investors form outside the PRC.Having sold JQW once, they are now fraudulently trying to get it back and leaving everything in place in Hong Kong so they can go and sell it all over again to another lot of international investors.Hopefully, unless the present minority shareholders in JQW plc are dealt with in a reasonable and wholly appropriate manner JIL will simply be too toxic for any future international to ever go near.
Re: Shareholder Group update Rick43, thanks for that - it makes a little more sense.I will look at the China Resolutions LLP website once it is up and running.I have also sent correspondence to the Jersey Registrar, and to date the company JQW plc has not been dissolved. I believe Mr J F Dossin also wrote to them. I guess if it is not to be dissolved at present then the Jersey Registrar may well attach terms to such a decision, such as how long it is to remain live.I was somewhat surprised as to the ED's keeping JIL operating as normal. I had expected them to take the whole operation back into the PRC. That JIL continues, suggests they have some sort of plan, and getting JQW plc off AIM, and then getting it dissolved were the first steps in that plan.Dissolution of JQW plc would mean of course that JIL in Hong Kong would accrue all the benefits and revenues of the JQW operation in China, and the 100% holding that JQW now retains in JIL via its 10,000 shareholding could be transferred (fraudulently) to another third party.If JQW plc were dissolved such a fraudulent transfer could be dressed up as in some way being legitimate. Of course it wouldn't be legitimate, merely the latest step in an ongoing fraud against shareholders. If JQW plc remains live however, then to make such a transfer appear in any way legitimate becomes much more difficult. If JIL were to obtain and retain all the benefits of the JQW website then presumably the fact that it is located in Hong Kong as opposed to the PRC, is an important aspect for the ED's. Being in Hong Kong possibly makes the company more easily "marketable" at some future date.There is evidence to indicate that the closure of the JQW website from 21st September 2015 to 27th October 2015 was much less severe than the company indicated to the market. Indeed there are figures to suggest that the website was only closed for around 14 days, and 8 of those days were a Chinese national holiday in any event.The second "closure" from 30th November 2015 to 15th December 2015, which prompted Cairn to resign on 2nd December 2015 appears not to have occurred in China at all, where the website continued to operate normally. I believe Cairn were basically duped into resigning, and that had the required effect, so far as the ED's were concerned of getting JQW plc de-listed from AIM.Certainly from 30th June 2015 onwards (the date of Mr Mr Koo Wei Boon purported resignation as FD), and possibly before the ED's were set on de-listing from AIM, but appear to have wanted this to occur by "circumstance" rather than taking positive steps themselves to de-list.All the charade with the FD resigning (he stayed at the subsidiary, JIL), the passing over of the dividend, appointment of a 25 year old as replacement FD, the website closures (which weren't really closures at all), were all designed to force the share price down and achieve the resignation of the Nomad and then ultimately de-listing.Anyway, I'll keep a close eye on the Jersey and Hong Kong Registrars, and look forward to seeing the China Resolutions website once it is up and running.
Re: Shareholder Group update I have been in email contact with Rupert Scott firstname.lastname@example.org . He is a private investor in JQW. He helped initiate JQW SAG and deals with the JQW SAG email traffic. The members of the JQW SAG now hold just over 11 million JQW shares. John McLean, who has set up China Resolutions LLP to represent shareholders in 4 Fujian companies that had delisted, should have a website running quite soon to explain what is happening. See Resolutions LLP officers list via [link] and for John McLeans profile see [link] The £9000 which was raised from Shareholders in the SAG, who subscribed £1 per 1000 shares held, is a deposit against expenses. If a payout via China Resolutions LLP is forthcoming, the subscribers will be re-paid first. Rupert Scott understands that it should be possible for those holders of JQW shares, who have not as yet contributed to the cost of the action, to do so when the website is up and running.The shareholders in each of the shareholder action groups for Naibu, Chaintek and Camkids are funding their own action. Rupert understands that those groups include largish institutional shareholders.Rupert Scott appreciates the work being done on the Interactive Investor discussion board to keep shareholders informed. He continues We (the JQW SAG) have lodged a request with the Jersey Registrar that the company (JQW) should not be wound up. (See Sienna1s post on this board dated 27th September 2016.) Rupert also notes Sienna1s comments about JIL.
Re: Shareholder Group update That's a good bit of research Sienna and gives more weight to the theory that JQW is and always was, a vehicle to 'utilise' the AIM market, before quietly disappearing.Even more galling that JQW appears to be going from strength to strength, in business terms, unlike many other of the more infamous Chinese casualties on AIM.
Apology I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise to the JQW Shareholder Action Group and Rupert in particular, for suggesting in any way that their efforts may not have been to the benefit of JQW shareholders.I was of the opinion that I had emailed JQW direct, but it transpires that I had come across the email address of the SAG during my internet searches and emailed them direct.I have suggested to Rupert that he answers some of the questions posed by other contributors to this board.
Re: Shareholder Group update Interesting - but I'm not sure I fully understand what is going on here.In the "joint action" who has the money been raised from, shareholders in all the companies mentioned or just one? And if a recovery is made from say JQW then will the shareholders from the other companies mentioned benefit - ie a recovery from JQW could be shared between shareholders from the other companies.So why should JQW shareholders fund actions in China that may recover money which benefits say Naibu shareholders?Because it seems to be that JQW is by far the strongest of the four - for example I've heard that the Naibu factory, or alleged factory, is now empty and abandoned.Certainly on Alexa JQW is ranked 124 in China, and presently rising fairly rapidly, and ranked 1250 or so in the world.Moreover research from China based iResearch dated 19th September 2016[link] that the Chinese B2B market grew 14.4% Q2 15 to Q2 16 to 5.79BnYuan. Over the same period JQW grew market share from 4.9% to 5.3% to be the clear number 3 B2B website in China - so that suggests revenue growth of slightly over 20% for JQW to the year end June 2016.If total B2B revenues in China for the year are 5.79x4 ~ 23.163BnYuan then 5.3% of this would be 1.227BnYuan.Taking an exchange rate of 10Yuan to £1 then this would given annual income to JQW of £122M to the year end June 2016.Rather interestingly, JQW plc (company number 113593) is at risk of being dissolved by the Jersey Companies Registry on 30th September 2016 for failing to file an Annual Return. Needless to say, nor has it filed accounts.Contrast that with JQW plc's 100% owned Hong Kong subsidiary Junde International Holdings Limited, (company number 1791570) (JIL) which effectively owns the jqw.com website and all its income.JIL continues to file all necessary documents with the Hong Kong registrar, and within the last two months has filed change of registered office and an Annual Return. The Annual Return for JIL dated 24th August 2016 confirms that JQW plc continues as the sole owner of all the 10,000 shares issued by JIL.Copies of these documents may easily be obtained from the Hong Kong registry for around £1 each.And the directors of JIL? They are the very same Mr Cai Yongde, Mr Chen Doacai and Mr Koo Wei Boon who are directors of JQW plc. Mr Koo Wei Boon never resigned as a director of JIL, which suggests that his resignation from JQW plc was a deliberate action designed to undermine the JQW plc share price.So it appears that JQW as a business appears to be doing very well, and that should JQW plc disappear then Mr Cai Yongde, Mr Chen Doacai and Mr Koo Wei Boon may feel free to distribute the 10,000 shares owned at present by JQW plc in JIL, as they see fit.
Further mail from Rupert Received another mail from Rupert advising that there is now a JQW matched-bargain facility available via N+1Singer. They will facilitate the transaction (for a fee), if a buyer can be matched with anyone offering their shares for sale. Therefore, all depends on whether there are any buyers out there and what price they will pay.Email states the following person as a the contact to approach - Rupert.Bole@n1singer.com
Shareholder Group update Received an email today from 'Rupert' from the Shareholder Action Group, with an update on discussions with JQW. They have apparently raised £9000 and engaged China Resolutions LLP in a joint action against JQW, Naibu, Chaintek and Camkids. Section of update is as follows:We have now had a first report back from John McLean. He is reasonably encouraged by developments so far. There has been a meeting between the CEO of the China British Business Council and the Chairman of the China Council for Promotion of International Trade for Fujian district, to discuss the situation. The mayor of Jinjiang has also been engaged.The Chinese side have requested 14 days to have internal discussions before they contact John McLean for a follow up. In the meantime, the respective companies have been contacted by CCIPT.John McLean reports that things are progressing faster than expected and that the feed back from the Chinese authorities has been receptive. He feels that we 'appear to have officialdom on our side'. He adds that the next stage will be opening dialogue with the Jinjiang mayor and the respective companies, so our speed of progress will probably slow down. But overall, it is a good start.Make of that what you will!!
Re: Shareholder Action Group Just had a quick look on LinkedIn and John McLean is apparently still chairman of Sorbic - not surprised he got a settlement then.........I may sign up to try LinkedIn Premium, so I can message him direct and ask for information on this 'action'.
Re: Shareholder Action Group Interesting that China Resolutions LLP was only actually incorporated on 28th July 2016.So if they have received money in respect of Sorbic they must be very efficient.And as for a combined action - why would JQW shareholders (JQW being an obviously continuing company) wish to be combined with shareholders in other companies which may be no hopers?
Re: Shareholder Action Group Just a thought, but if someone at JQW was actually trying to scam money from existing shareholders, that would have to be a gold medal for bare faced cheek!!!!!!!
Re: Shareholder Action Group All very odd. I've exchanged a few mails with 'Rupert' over the last couple of weeks. He's asking for £1 per 1000 shares to fund this action, which is supposedly going to be carried out by 'China Resolutions LLP', which is led by John McLean OBE (currently a director of the China Britain Business Council).From Rupert's mail:'He has offered to act on behalf of JQW and other de-listed Chinese firms whose shareholders find themselves effectively disenfranchised.''China Resolutions LLP has recently obtained a cash settlement for shareholders in Sorbic PLC (which delisted in May 2015). He believes that the same can be achieved with JQW and other companies (such as Chaintek, Naibu etc) by working through the Fujian authorities where he has good contacts.''China Resolutions LLP's terms are the followingayment of an initial £10,000 retainer (returned to subscribers to this action in full upon success).15% success fee on any funds recovered (after deducting fees and expenses).''JQW appears to be still trading well, which makes a successful outcome here more likely. But no solution is guaranteed and it is unlikely to be quick. Getting an offer from Sorbic took about 9 months.''Our JQW Shareholder Action Group (SAG) currently represents about 50 shareholders holding approx. 10.7m shares. Raising £10k requires each member of our SAG contributing £1 for every 1000 shares they hold. The 4 largest shareholders in our group (who between them have 61.7% of the SAG total) are all happy to contribute on this basis.''If the action is successful, contributors to this action will get the initial retainer back plus a further £10,000 before any pro-rata distribution.' - (this doesn't make sense to me, as all recovered funds would have to be distributed pro-rata.)'If you wish to take part in this action, please let me know by July 31st if possible.'He then goes on to give a reason for sending the money to him rather than 'John McLean' (Die Hard?????).A further email says that £8,500 has been received so far and gives another 'cut off' of 5th August. It also says that 'John McLean' hope to have a website up and running in September and the action will be a combined action on behalf of JQW, Chaintek, Naobu and Camkids.I pressed him on where he had got my email address from and he said that must have emailed him. When I told him that I mailed JQW direct, he said it was a mystery.I'm inclined to think that all is not what it seems and maybe there's a reliance on monies being asked for, per individual, not being a huge amount in the scheme of things.If it wasn't for the fact that I definitely emailed JQW and then received these emails, I might be inclined to think it was more genuine.I will have a dig into John McLean, to see if that end stacks up.Any thoughts?