Neu auf wallstreet:online?
Jetzt registrieren | Login
x
Benutzername:

Passwort:

Angemeldet bleiben
Passwort vergessen?

Advanced Battery: China-Aktie unter Strom (KGV 6 billiger als BYD) - Die letzten 30 Beiträge

eröffnet am 09.05.09 14:29:13 von
Mr-Wallstreet

neuester Beitrag 18.04.14 14:43:41 von
phranque
Beiträge: 3.226
ID: 1.150.252
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 390.866


Beitrag schreiben Ansicht: Die letzten 30 Beiträge
Avatar
phranque
schrieb am 18.04.14 14:43:41
Beitrag Nr. 3.226 (46.846.670)
kurzes feddback zur baaderbank:
hab noch mal nachgegakt - keine Info, zu borniert!

Leider war ich, wie manch anderer, auch zu dooof alles rechtzeitig zu verkaufen. Nach den Kurssprung auf >1 USD war ich wirklich der Ansicht, es geht weiter nach oben. 50% habe ich inzwischen verkauft, das aktuelle Kursniveau wundert mich allerdings. Risiken und Chancen sind wie sie waren.

Hier eine Antwort vom 18.04.2014 des Webmasters auf eine Anfrage vom 26.03.2014 zur canton fair:
Please direct your question to Ms. Sabrina He or Mr. Jimmy Zong at <abatob@gmail.com>.

Letztes Jahr hatte ich ja mal versucht einen scooter zu ordern.
Vor kurzem hat mich ein ehemaliger MA angeschrieben, der inzwischen bei einem anderen Hersteller arbeiet.
Auf Rückfrage zu ABAT kam folfgendes:
Dear Frank,
Thanks for your kind reply!
Now,i am in the Canton Fair.
Yeah,i left Angell and come to this factory.
Frankly speaking,Angell is not bad,especially the products and the quality,but this year,they want to pay attention to domestic market,anelld change the products.So,we left Angell.










Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 11.04.14 22:30:44
Beitrag Nr. 3.225 (46.812.157)
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 10.04.14 22:29:07
Beitrag Nr. 3.224 (46.804.443)
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:32 PM
To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 1:11-cv-04383-CM Braun v. Fu

Hello

sorry for inquiry you , but I`m a longterm shareholder of ABAT stocks and I would like to konw how long the
case will go on further .
As fas as I understand the court has say that ABAT has to file SEC fillings to close the case , if this is right , is there a timeline given by the court ? Someday the case should closed , it can`t go untill the day the cows come home .
And is there a possibility to punish Mr.Fu for his behaviour ?
It`s obious that he is a lair , one who can pay lawyers over years but not able (willing) to publish SEC fillings and do things are necessary to bring back the value to the stocks , even though he promised it over the years again and again .
I´m nor sure , but is Deathpenalty in NY established ?
Maybe not , unfortunately .
He makes me really angry , but how can one go away with that someday ? Taking everything from the holders , bring it to china and gone forever . It can`t be right . There must be something what one can do against it .

however

best regards D.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dirk,

The Court denied the proposed settlement in this matter because the Company is delinquent in its SEC filings. The court did not order ABAT to get current with its SEC filings. The Court has no authority or jurisdiction to do that. Only the SEC can make the Company file or ABAT will face delisting. The SEC has not yet acted and ABAT has made clear that it has no intention of getting current with its SEC filings.

We share your frustration with respect to Mr. Wu and ABAT. However, as I am sure you are aware, it is difficult to get any kind of judgment against Mr. Wu or ABAT because they are in China. We are evaluating what, if anything, can be done in this case.

Regards,
Sxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 09.04.14 13:14:22
Beitrag Nr. 3.223 (46.792.521)
also nachdem ich jetzt bei PACER alle documente gelesen habe und mir abat auf die frage wie es weitergeht mit "unfug" geantwortet hat und nachdem der Blum seine Aktien wohl am Markt verkauft haben wird ( er wollte ja von Fu 95 Cent was ,der ablehnte - der Kurs ging aber nachdem der abgelehnt hatte an einem Tag mal auf 1,10 , auch mit hohen Umsätzen ) glaube ich das da nun endgültig nichts mehr kommen wird und alles im "Sande" verlaufen wird .
Schon die Antwort " Hi:

the management will inform all shareholders at the same time when it
makes decision regarding the company's plan going forward.

thanks!"

sagt doch alles , hey nach über 3 jahren wollen sie jetzt erst noch lange überlegen müssen was sie als nächstes tun , hahaha - danke für`s verarschen .
Diese Leute gehören dahin wo man das Gras wachsen hört . So ist das eben .
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 07.04.14 19:32:45
Beitrag Nr. 3.222 (46.781.723)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.781.623 von chefadm am 07.04.14 19:18:00ich dachte die frage wäre ein aprilscherz , habe aber trotzdem auch mal nachgefragt und keine antwort erhalten .
d.h. die antworten wohl nicht jedem .
Avatar
chefadm
schrieb am 07.04.14 19:18:00
Beitrag Nr. 3.221 (46.781.623)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.748.563 von phranque am 01.04.14 21:19:24Gibt es schon eine Antwort der Baaderbank ?
Warum hält es ein Händler plötzlich für eine gute Idee ABAT-Aktien auch noch an weiteren deutschen Handelsplätzen anzubieten ?
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 06.04.14 23:05:57
Beitrag Nr. 3.220 (46.776.739)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.776.275 von Shaki am 06.04.14 20:44:03naja, egal - wenn sonst nix vorangeht .
Avatar
Shaki
schrieb am 06.04.14 20:44:03
Beitrag Nr. 3.219 (46.776.275)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.773.863 von dirk3333 am 06.04.14 01:57:30Hmmm, uralt alle Vorwürfe bereits bekannt... :keks:
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 06.04.14 01:57:30
Beitrag Nr. 3.218 (46.773.863)
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 03.04.14 18:02:48
Beitrag Nr. 3.217 (46.762.155)
ABATOB@GMAIL.COM
A question was asked about the ABAT email.
I have messaged them many time at this address and I have always received a prompt courteous reply.
I would urge all longs to write to them and express the urgency of bringing their filings up to date asap now that the court case is over.

No, they have never offerred anything that would resemble inside information.
Please don't ask them for any.
Avatar
phranque
schrieb am 01.04.14 21:19:24
Beitrag Nr. 3.216 (46.748.563)
Zitat von phranqueseit wann in Berlin und München?


ich habe bei der Börse München, Bayrische Börse AG, nachgefragt, weshalb ABAT nun hier gelistet sei. Als Antwort habe ich die Information bekommen, dies sei auf Initiative eines Maklers der Baaderbank erfolgt. Da hab ich auch mal hin geschrieben, Antwort fehlt noch ...

Erstaunlich ist es ja schon, dass man z.B. über Stuttgart innerhalb weniger Sekunden ein 25-Tausender-Paket los wird. Läuft bestimmt über diesen Kanal!

ABAT nimmt dieses Jahr nicht an der Canton-Fair teil! Auf Nachfrage weshalb (bei WXABAT) habe ich (immerhin) eine Antwort erhalten. "Our company is in the process of the reform and restructuring"

Gute Fahrt
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 01.04.14 17:53:20
Beitrag Nr. 3.215 (46.747.163)
DAs ist das GANze Settlement



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE ADVANCED BATTERY Consolidated Civil Action
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. No. 11 Civ. 2279 (CM)
SECURITIES LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

Lead Plaintiff Ruble Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all other members of the
Settlement Class ("Lead Plaintiff'), has moved for final approval of the Proposed Settlement and
Reimbursement of Expenses in these consolidated class actions. The settlement terms originally
agreed upon by the parties are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, which was preliminarily
approved by this Court by Order dated November 26, 2013, and Amendment No. 1 thereto. (Dkt.
No. 120.) Since preliminary approval, the agreement has been modified in one respect --
Amendment No. 1 to the Stipulation of Settlement delinks this settlement from the settlement of
related derivative litigation, which this court has declined to approve. The Court will refer to the
terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, as the "Settlement."

For substantially the reasons advanced by Class Counsel in support ofthis motion, the
Settlement as modified is approved.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2011 and thereafter, several securities class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York against the ABA T
Defendants and others. (See Dkt. No. 1; Burns v. Adv. Battery Techs., Inc., No. 11 Civ.
2354-CM; Cohen v. Adv. Battery Techs., Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2849-CM (the "Cohen Action"); and
Connors v. Advanced Battery Techs., Inc., No. 11 Civ. 3098-CM.) The complaints asserted


claims under Sections IO(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), and 78t(a)),
and Rule 1 Ob-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, ( 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.1 Ob-5), alleging that the ABA T Defendants, among others, made material misstatements
and omissions concerning the Company's financial results, and specifically, that the Company
reported inflated gross profits, net income, and profit margins, and further, misrepresented the
related party nature of certain business transactions. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1, ~~ 1-2, 22-36; Cohen
Action, Dkt. No. 1, ~~ 1-5, 7, 18-46.) On September 9, 2011, the Court consolidated the related
securities class actions, appointed Mr. Ruble Sanderson as Lead Plaintiff and approved Lead
Plaintiffs choice of Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel ("Lead Counsel"). (Dkt. No. 50.)

On September 29, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed the Corrected First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("First Amended Complaint"), naming as defendants the ABA T
Defendants, as well as ABA T's outside auditors, Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Co., LLC and
Friedman LLP (collectively, "Bagell Josephs"), and EFP Rotenberg, LLP ("EFP") (collectively,
the "Auditor Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 52.) By Decision and Order dated August 29, 2012, the
Court denied the ABAT Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, but
granted the motions to dismiss filed by the Auditor Defendants. (Dkt. No. 90.)

On September 25, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 96, 97), which the Auditor
Defendants opposed. (Dkt Nos. 100 and 101.) On September 18, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Class Certification. (Dkt. Nos. 94, 95.)

On October 5, 2012, the ABAT Defendants filed an Answer to the First Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 98.) On October 11, 2012, the Court entered a stay of all proceedings.
(Dkt. No. 99.)

2



Thereafter, the Settling Parties commenced settlement negotiations. Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff and the ABA T Defendants engaged in extensive negotiations concerning the possible
resolution of this Litigation. Such negotiations included extensive correspondence, an exchange
of information relevant to the Settlement, telephonic negotiations and in-person negotiation
sessions. These negotiations included discussions not only about the merits of the claims, but
also about the Company's financial condition and assets.

After difficult negotiations, the Settling Parties reached an agreement to settle this
lawsuit. In the course of settlement discussions, the ABA T Defendants produced documents
reflecting minimal insurance coverage applied to Lead Plaintiffs claims and that their U.S.
assets are not significant enough to withstand a multimillion dollar judgment, that the majority of
the Company's assets are located in the People's Republic of China ("China") and that recovery
of any judgment against them is unlikely.

These settlement negotiations ultimately resulted in a proposed Settlement which was
memorialized in a Stipulation of Settlement dated April 24, 2013. The Stipulation of Settlement
was conditioned upon, among other things, dismissal of two derivative actions captioned Blumka

v. Fu, (N.Y. Cty. Index No. 651343/2011) and Braun v. Fu, 11 Civ. 4383 (S.D.N.Y.)
("Derivative Actions").
On November 5, 2013, the papers in support of preliminary approval of the Settlement
were filed with the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 116, 117.) On November 26, 2013, the Court entered an
order preliminarily approving the Settlement, certifying the Settlement Class, certifying Lead
Plaintiff as class representative for the Settlement Class, appointing Pomerantz LLP as Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class and providing for notice of the Settlement to all potential
Settlement Class members. (Dkt. No. 120.)

3



Pursuant to the preliminary approval order, notice of the Settlement was sent
subsequently to Settlement Class members. See Walsh Deel. at Ex. I, Affidavit of Michael
Rosenbaum at~~ 3-4, 9 (the "Rosenbaum Aff.).

On February 21, 2014, this Court held a final settlement hearing with respect to both this
Settlement and a settlement in the Derivative Actions. At the hearing, the Court expressed
serious reservations concerning the terms of the settlement of the Derivative Actions, and
indicated that the Court would not approve that settlement in its current form. Given that
approval of the Derivative Actions' settlement was originally a condition of the settlement in the
case, the Court requested that the parties advise within fourteen days whether they would be
prepared to proceed with the class action settlement. By letter dated March 7, 2014, the parties
informed the Court that they were prepared to proceed with this settlement regardless of the
status of the Derivative Actions' settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement was subsequently
amended by an Amendment No. I to the Stipulation of Settlement, dated March 18, 2014, to
remove the condition of the dismissal of the Derivative Actions.

DISCUSSION

I. THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED.
A. The Settlement Is Fair, Adequate and Reasonable.
The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where
substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigor of prolonged
litigation. Thus, the procedural and substantive fairness of a settlement should be examined "in
light of the 'strong judicial policy in favor of settlement[]' of class action suits." Aponte v.
Comprehensive Health Mgmt., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 4825 JLC, 2013 WL 1364147, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 2, 2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores. Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir.
2005)) (brackets in original); see also Spann v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 8238(DLC),

4



2005 WL 1330937, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 7, 2005) ("[P]ublic policy favors settlement, especially
in the case of class actions."); Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ("The
compromise of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by public policy.").

Due to the presumption in favor of settlement, "[a]bsent fraud or collusion, courts should
be hesitant to substitute [their] judgment for that of the parties who negotiated the settlement." In
re EVCJ Career Colleges Holding Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 05 Civ. 10240(CM), 2007 WL 2230177,
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2007). More explicitly, the Supreme Court has cautioned that, in
reviewing a proposed settlement, courts should "not decide the merits of the case or resolve
unsettled legal questions." Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n.14 (1981).

As in this case, a settlement of claims brought as a class action is subject to court
approval after reasonable notice and a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(l)-(2). Courts generally
approve a settlement if it is "fair, adequate, and reasonable, and not a product of collusion." WalMart,
396 F.3d at 116 (internal quotation omitted). A court determines the fairness of a
settlement by looking both at the terms of the settlement and the preceding negotiation process.
Id. at 116. With respect to the settlement process, a class action settlement enjoys a strong
"presumption of fairness" where it is the product of arm's-length negotiations concluded by
experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery. Id.; see also In re Global Crossing Sec.
& ER/SA Litig., 225 F.R.D. 436, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

B. The Settlement Satisfies the Grinnell Factors.
To determine whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court should
consider the so-called "Grinnell factors:" (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the
litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the
amount of discovery completed; ( 4) the risks of establishing liability; ( 5) the risks of establishing
damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the

5



defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement
fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range ofreasonableness of the settlement
fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. City ofDetroit v.
Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v.
Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir. 2000). "All nine factors need not be
satisfied, rather, the court should consider the totality of these factors in light of the particular
circumstances." Thompson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 55, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing
D 'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 86 (2d Cir. 2001 )).

Here, the Settlement substantially satisfies the Grinnell factors and, thus, wholly warrants
final approval.

1. Continued Litigation Would Be Complex, Expensive and Protracted.
The Settlement provides the Settlement Class with fair relief, given the delay and
expenses of trial and post-trial proceedings, and the likelihood that any judgment recovered
would be uncollectible. Courts consistently recognize that the complexity, expense, and likely
duration of litigation are critical factors in evaluating the reasonableness of a settlement,
especially in a securities class action. See, e.g., Jn re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. & ER/SA
Litig., MDL Dkt. No. 1500, 02 Civ. 5575(SWK), 2006 WL 903236, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6,
2006); Hicks v. Stanley, No. 01 Civ. 1007l(RJH), 2005 WL 2757792, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24,
2005); In re Alloy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 03 Civ. 1597 (WHP), 2004 WL 2750089, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 2, 2004) (granting approval and noting that complex securities fraud issues "were likely to
be litigated aggressively, at substantial expense to all parties").

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, there is no question that further litigation would have
been expensive and complex. With respect to discovery generally, given the complexities of the
issues involved in this action, thousands of pages of documents would have been reviewed and

6



numerous depositions taken. Moreover, the ABAT Defendants and key witnesses are located in
China, which would add tremendous complication and cost to pursue discovery. See In re China
Sunergy Sec. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 7895(DAB), 2011 WL 1899715, at *5 (S.D.N. Y. May 13, 2011)
(expense and protracted nature of discovery of Chinese defendants favored settlement); see also
Schwartz v. Novo Industri A/S, 119 F.R.D. 359, 363 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (weighing the complications
of discovery with a foreign defendant in favor of settlement).

Class certification would have presented additional complexities and obstacles. Lead
Plaintiff procured expert opinion(s) on the issue of market efficiency; Defendants would have
done the same had the case proceeded. The parties would also have enlisted experts on the issues
of loss causation and damages. In addition to full briefing, documents would have been produced
and expert depositions would have been taken.

Were plaintiffs to prevail on their motion for class certification, extensive discovery
would have ensued, implicating the significant challenges detailed above concerning obtaining
documents and other discovery from witnesses in China. Following the close of merits
discovery, the parties would engage in expert discovery and trial preparation, which would be
expensive and complex.

The parties resolved this action prior to the resolution of Lead Plaintiffs class
certification motion, or the filing of any summary judgment and Daubert motions, thereby
avoiding contentious motion practice, a complex and costly trial, and likely appeals. At summary
judgment, Lead Plaintiff would have faced numerous hurdles, including Defendants' challenges
to loss causation, and arguments that there were no actionable misrepresentations during the
Class Period. Even if the First Amended Complaint survived Defendants' likely motion(s) for
summary judgment and any ensuing appeals, continued prosecution of the action would be

7



complex, expensive, and lengthy, with a more favorable outcome than the Settlement highly
uncertain. Moreover, regardless of which party might prevail at trial, appeals likely would ensue.

Indeed, the present value of a certain recovery at this time, compared to the slim chance
for a greater one down the road, supports approval of a settlement that eliminates the expense
and delay of continued litigation, as well as the significant risk that the Class could receive no
recovery. Accordingly, any potential recovery by Class members in the absence of a settlement
would occur years in the future, substantially delaying payment to Class members. By contrast,
the Settlement offers the opportunity to provide definite recompense to the Class now. See Hicks,
2005 WL 2757792, at *6 ("Further litigation would necessarily involve further costs; justice may
be best served with a fair settlement today as opposed to an uncertain future settlement or trial of
the action."). Thus, the likely duration, complexity and expense of further litigation supports a
finding that the Settlement is fair and weighs in favor of final approval.

2.
The Lack of Objections and Minimal Number of Opt-Outs Support Final
Approval.
The absence of valid objections and minimal investors electing to opt out of the
Settlement provides evidence of Class members' approval of the terms of the Settlement. See
RMED Int'!, Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., No. 94 Civ. 5587, 2003 WL 21136726, at* 1

(S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2003). Indeed, "f only a small number of objections are received, that fact
can be viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the settlement." Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 118
(citations omitted).
Pursuant to the preliminary approval order, and as stated in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Long Notice"), Settlement Class members were
originally notified that they have until January 31, 2014 to request exclusion from the Settlement
Class or to object to the Settlement (i.e., 20 days prior to the Court's final approval hearing on

8



February 21, 2014, plus one day to ensure that objections could be filed on a day the Clerk's
office was open). Rosenbaum Aff. at~ 10. At the parties' request, because of the discovery of
additional data, the time for sending notices and for requesting exclusion was extended. Through
February 18, some 82,019 post card notices were sent to potential class members, their names
and addresses derived from transfer records, Depository Trust's Participant Proxy Contact List,
databases maintained by Berdon Claims Administration's listing of compliance personnel for
nominees, and the Vickers Directory of Institutional Investors. No formal objections were filed.
The objector to the contemporaneous (and now disapproved) Derivative Settlement, Joel Caplan,
commented variously in his numerous communications with the court about this settlement sometimes
complaining about it, other times insisting that he did not oppose it -but in the end,
he chose to opt out of the settlement, as did 13 other shareholders. Rosenbaum Aff. at~ 10. By
contrast, 1,640 completed claims forms have been received. This attests to the overwhelming
support for the settlement among class members.

3.
Lead Plaintiff Has Sufficient Information to Make Informed Decisions as
to Settling This Case.
The third Grinnell factor, which looks to the "stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed," Wal-mart, 396 F.3d at 117, focuses on whether the plaintiffs "obtained
sufficient information through discovery to properly evaluate their case and to assess the
adequacy of any settlement proposal." Bellifemine v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 07 Civ. 2207
(JGK), 2010 WL 3119374, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2010) (citations omitted).

The substance of Lead Counsel's knowledge of the merits and potential weaknesses of
Plaintiffs claims are adequate to support the Settlement in this case. By the time the parties
agreed to settle this action, Lead Counsel had, among other things:

9




reviewed and analyzed ABA T's Class Period and pre-Class Period public filings, annual
reports, press releases, quarterly earnings call and investment conference transcripts, and
other public statements;

collected and reviewed a comprehensive compilation of analyst reports and major
financial news service reports on ABA T;

reviewed and analyzed stock trading data relating to ABA T;

utilized the services of a private investigator in China, who located and interviewed
ABA T customers and former employees, visited certain ABAT production facilities in
China and obtained ABA T's Chinese regulatory filings;

researched, investigated, and drafted one of the initial complaints (Cohen Action, Dkt.
No. 1) and the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 52);

researched and drafted the motion to appoint the Lead Plaintiff (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17, 40);

researched and drafted memoranda opposing Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No.
79);

researched and drafted Lead Plaintiffs motion to strike documents offered by the ABAT
Defendants (Dkt. Nos. 80, 81, 88); and

researched and drafted Lead Plaintiffs motion for class certification (Dkt. Nos. 94, 95)
and supporting memoranda of law thereto.
While no merits discovery occurred in this case to date, Lead Counsel conducted targeted
post-Settlement discovery with respect to ABA T's recoverable assets. Thus, Lead Counsel is
knowledgeable with respect to possible outcomes and risks in this matter and, thus, able to
recommend the Settlement. See Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 458 ("[T]he question is whether
the parties had adequate information about their claims ....").

10



4.
Lead Plaintiff Faces Significant Risks in Establishing Liability and
Damages.
In analyzing the risks of establishing liability, a court does not "need to decide the merits
of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions." Cinelli v. MCS Claim Servs., Inc., 236 F.R.D.
118, 121 (E.D.N. Y. 2006) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Rather, courts should
weigh the likelihood of success on the merits against the relief provided by the Settlement. Id at

122. Courts routinely approve settlements where plaintiffs would have faced significant legal and
factual obstacles to establishing liability. See Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 459.
In assessing the Settlement here, the Court balances the benefits afforded the Class,
including the immediacy and certainty of a recovery, against the continuing risks of litigation.
See Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463. Securities class actions present hurdles to proving liability that are
particularly difficult for plaintiffs to meet. See AOL Time Warner, 2006 WL 903236, at* 11
(noting that "[t]he difficulty of establishing liability is a common risk of securities litigation");
Alloy, 2004 WL 2750089, at *2 (finding that issues present in a securities action presented
significant hurdles to proving liability).

While Lead Counsel believes, based on their investigation, that Lead Plaintiff's claims
against the ABA T Defendants have merit, they also recognize that they would face substantial
hurdles. Defendants have articulated arguably credible defenses that could be accepted by the
Court or jury. Indeed, proving liability and establishing damages is far from a foregone
conclusion. See In re Milken and Assocs. Sec. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 46, 54 (S.D.N. Y. 1993)
(approving settlement of a small percentage of the total damages sought because the magnitude
of damages often becomes a "battle of experts ... with no guarantee of the outcome"); see also In
re Paine Webber Ltd. P'shipsLitig., 171F.R.D.104,129(S.D.N.Y.1997)(same),a.ff'd, 117
F .3d 721 (2d Cir. 1997).

I I


The ABA T Defendants argued in their motion to dismiss that Lead Plaintiff failed to
establish the type of conscious misbehavior and recklessness implicating scienter. Specifically,
the ABA T Defendants submitted documentary evidence to support their argument that one of the
transactions challenged in the complaint as an undisclosed related party deal was not, in fact,
related. (See Dkt. Nos. 70-24 and 70-25.) The Court refused to consider these documents when
deciding the ABA T Defendants' motion to dismiss; however, it is far from clear that Lead
Plaintiff would have prevailed on this issue at trial.

More importantly, the Settlement acknowledges the practical reality that collectability of
any judgment against the ABA T Defendants is unlikely. In particular, documents produced by
the ABA T Defendants indicate that they have minimal insurance coverage applying to Lead
Plaintiff's claims, and that, in all likelihood, any judgment against the ABAT Defendants would
be uncollectible because a majority of their assets are outside of the United States. Lead Counsel
relied on this information provided by the ABA T Defendants in recommending the
reasonableness of the Settlement -which affords some recovery to class members, versus no
recovery at all even if this case were successfully litigated to judgment.

Given the uncertain prospects for any recovery in this action, settlement at this point in
the litigation provides a tangible benefit to the Class. Absent this Settlement, the Class faces a
very real risk of no recovery, possibly after years of additional proceedings. The Settlement,
however, will provide certain relief to the Class now, and "without subjecting them to the risks,
complexity, duration, and expense of continuing litigation." Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 45657;
see also Maley v. Del Global Techs. Corp., 186 F. Supp. 2d 358, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

12



5.
Maintaining Class Action Status through Trial Presents a Substantial
Risk.
While Lead Counsel believes in the merits of the case, Defendants surely would have
raised vigorous challenges to class certification. Moreover, even if the Class were certified,
Defendants may have moved to decertify the Class before trial or on appeal at the conclusion of
trial, as class certification may always be reviewed. Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c) authorizes a court to decertify a class at any time. See Chatelain v. Prudential-Bache Sec.,
Inc., 805 F. Supp. 209, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ("Even if certified, the class would face the risk of
decertification."); Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. I 30, UA., 657
F.2d 890, 896 (7th Cir. 1981) ("[A] favorable class determination by the court is not cast in
stone ...."). Given such risk, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.

6.
The Risk that Any Judgment against the ABAT Defendants Would Be
Uncollectible Is Significant.
Even if Lead Plaintiff prevailed at trial and obtained judgment against the ABAT
Defendants, based on the post-Settlement discovery and representations made by the ABA T
Defendants, it is questionable whether Lead Plaintiff would ever be able to collect on that
judgment. This factor weighs heavily in support of approval. See Aramburu v. Healthcare Fin.
Services, Inc., No. 02-CV-6535MDG, 2009 WL 1086938, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2009)
(approval favored where "defendant's 'dire financial condition,' [made] 'obtaining a greater
recovery than provided by the [ s ]ettlement ... difficult"); see also Maley, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 365
(considering contribution of insurance policies to be minimal because the policies would be
significantly depleted by defense costs or possibility of carrier disclaiming coverage).

In light of documents produced by the ABA T Defendants reflecting that they have
minimal insurance coverage and no significant collectible assets in the United States, Lead
Counsel negotiated a fair and reasonable Settlement for the Settlement Class. In particular, Lead

13



Counsel reviewed: ( 1) the ABA T Defendants' insurance documents, which indicate that the
amount of coverage is extremely limited; and (2) documents provided by the ABA T Defendants
reflecting that their assets in the United States are of limited value.

This fundamental collectability issue could easily result in no recovery at all. Thus, this
factor weighs heavily in favor of approving the Settlement.

7. The Settlement Is Reasonable in Light of the Best Possible Recovery.
The Settlement is reasonable in light of the Settlement Class' best possible recovery
against the ABA T Defendants, which is severely limited by the minimal assets that would be
available to pay any judgment that may be won. "The 'best possible' recovery necessarily

assumes Plaintiffs' success on both liability and damages covering the full Class Period alleged
in the Complaint as well as the ability ofDefendants to pay the judgment." Maley, 186 F. Supp.
2d at 365 (finding that the settlement provided maximum available cash in light of the "limited
insurance coverage and poor cash position of the Company") (emphasis added).

The settlement amount is sufficient when limited insurance coverage, minimal domestic
assets, and significant risk of being unable to collect any judgment against the ABA T Defendants
are taken into account. See, e.g., Holden v. Burlington N., Inc., 665 F. Supp. 1398, 1414 (D.
Minn. 1987) ("In fact there is no reason, at least in theory, why a satisfactory settlement could
not amount to a hundredth or even a thousandth part of a single percent of the potential
recovery.") (internal quotations and citations omitted); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610,
618 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ("imply because a settlement may amount to only a fraction of the
potential recovery does not in itself render it unfair or inadequate. Compromise is the very nature
of settlement.") (citations omitted).

In sum, the Settlement is reasonable in light of the substantial resources that can be
conserved by avoiding the time, cost, rigor, and risk of prolonged litigation. Securities litigation

14



is a complex and evolving area of law requiring the devotion of significant resources. There is a
high likelihood that the costs involved in shepherding a securities action like this one through the
discovery process, pre-trial motions, trial, and appeals will far outweigh -and indeed subsume any
recovery that might be realized by the Settlement Class. Moreover, because the ABAT
Defendants continue to deny any liability while asserting numerous defenses, the potential for
any recovery remains highly uncertain. Most importantly, in light of the ABAT Defendants'
apparent lack of assets against which any judgment may be brought, this Settlement represents
reasonably certain monetary relief available to the Class.

C.
The Settlement Is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness Because It Is the
Product of Arm's-Length Negotiations Among Experienced Counsel.
Finally, a strong initial presumption or fairness attaches to the proposed settlement if, as
here, the settlement is reached by experienced counsel after arm's-length negotiations. Courts
accord great weight to the recommendations of counsel, who are most closely acquainted with
the facts of the underlying litigation. See Clark v. Ecolab Inc., No. 07 Civ. 8623(P AC), 2010 WL
1948198, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010); In re Milken, 150 F.R.D. at 66; Chatelain, 805 F.
Supp. at 212.

A presumption of fairness is appropriate here. The Settlement was entered into by the
parties in good faith, at arm's-length, and without collusion. See, e.g., Walsh Deel.~~ 4, 5. In
addition, the parties' discussions leading to the Settlement were not held until after Lead Counsel
had obtained an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims through its
investigation and subsequent motion practice, including the filing ofan amended complaint and
briefing on Defendants' motions to dismiss. See id. at~~ 4, 19.

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in extensive negotiations to reach
resolution of this action, including extensive correspondence, an exchange of information

15



relevant to the Settlement, and post-Settlement discovery. See Walsh Deel.~ 19. After settlement
negotiations, the Settling Parties finally submitted the Settlement Agreement to the Court for
preliminary approval, which was granted by order dated November 26, 2013. (Dkt. No. 120.)

As set forth herein, the proposed Settlement is reasonable according to the Grinnell
factors. Lead Counsel weighed the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant claims, defenses and
likelihood of recovery and, after extensive negotiations, reached an informed compromise. Under
these circumstances, Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Settlement should be afforded
the presumption of fairness, and that final approval should be granted.

II. THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION IS APPROVED.
As part of the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for, the Court
preliminarily approved the Plan of Allocation that was published in the Class Notice. (Dkt. No.
120.) I now grant final approval of the Plan of Allocation for the purpose of administering the
Settlement. 1

The Plan of Allocation is rational and reasonable. When evaluating the fairness of a Plan
of Allocation, courts give weight to the opinion of qualified counsel. "When formulated by
competent and experienced class counsel," a plan for allocation of net settlement proceeds "need
have only a reasonable, rational basis." Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 462 (quotation omitted);
In re Am. Bank Note Holographies, Inc. Sec. Litig., 127 F. Supp. 2d 418, 429-30 (S.D.N.Y.
2001).

Here, the minimum claim amount set in the Plan of Allocation ($100) is necessary in
order to "save the settlement fund from being depleted by the administrative costs associated
with claims unlikely to exceed those costs .... " In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd., No. CV-021
No distribution from the Settlement Fund will be made until the remaining claims against the

Auditor Defendants are resolved. Once a final judgment is entered in this case against the ABA T
Defendants, Lead Plaintiff plans to appeal dismissal of the claims against ABA T's auditors.

16



1510 CPS, 2007 WL 1191048, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2007); see In re Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., No. 02 MDL 1484JFK, 2007 WL 4526593, at* 12 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 20, 2007) (approving a $50 minimum cut-off amount "in order to foster the efficient
administration of the settlement"); In re Global Crossing Sec. and ERISA Litig., 225 F.R.D. at
463 ("Class counsel are entitled to use their discretion to conclude that, at some point, the need
to avoid excessive expense to the class as a whole outweighs the minimal loss to the claimants
who are not receiving their de mini mis amounts of relief."). In addition, nothing about the Plan
of Allocation gives preferential treatment to Lead Plaintiff. See Louie v. Kaiser Found. Health
Plan, Inc., No. 08cv0795 IEG RBB, 2008 WL 44 73183, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008).

The Plan was formulated by Lead Counsel with the goal ofreimbursing Settlement Class
members in a fair and reasonable manner. See Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 462.

III.
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IS FINALLY CERTIFIED FOR SETTLEMENT
PURPOSES.
The Second Circuit has long acknowledged the propriety of certifying a class solely for
settlement purposes. See Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 72-73 (2d Cir. 1982). Before
granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement, however, the Court should determine
that the proposed Settlement Class is a proper class for settlement purposes. See Amchem Prods.,
Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997); see also Manual/or Complex Litigation§ 21.632 (4th
ed. 2004). To certify a class, the Court must determine whether four threshold requirements of
Federal Rule 23(a) are met, namely, (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4)
adequacy ofrepresentation. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 613. Additionally, the action must be
maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l), (2), or (3). Id. at 614. In certifying a Settlement
Class, however, the Court is not required to determine whether the action, if tried, would present
intractable management problems, "for the proposal is that there be no trial." Id. at 620; see also

17



Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D). Here, the proposed Settlement Class meets all of the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

A class must be "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23 (a)(l ). "Joinder is generally presumed to be impracticable when a putative class exceeds 40
members." Menkes v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 270 F.R.D. 80, 90 (D. Conn. 2010) (citing Marisol A. v.
Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997)). Impracticable does not mean impossible, but "only
that the difficulty or inconvenience ofjoining all members ofthe class make use ofthe class
action appropriate." Central States Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, LLC, 504 F.3d 229, 244-45 (2d Cir. 2007). As noted above, over 82,000 notices
were sent to potential class members and 1,640 claims forms have already been received. This
attests to the numerosity of the class and establishes that individual joinder is impracticable.
The proposed Settlement Class also meets the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).
Commonality is generally easily satisfied, as it is established so long as the plaintiffs can
"identify some unifying thread among the [class] members' claims ...." In re Vivendi Universal,
S.A., 242 F.R.D. 76, 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing Cutler v. Perales, 128 F.R.D. 39, 44 (S.D.N.Y.
1989)). The requirement is met "ifthere are questions of fact and law which are common to the
class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). "Securities-fraud cases generally meet Rule 23(a)(2)'s
commonality requirement." Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 451-52 (citation omitted). Securities
fraud class actions are "'essentially course of conduct cases' because 'the nub of plaintiffs'
claims is that material information was withheld from the entire putative class in each action,
either by written or oral communication.'" In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 191 F.R.D. 369, 374

(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation omitted).
18



Lead Plaintiff also meets Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement because the claim '"arises
from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove
the defendant's liability."' In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir.
2009) (citing Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993)). Like all other Settlement
Class members, Lead Plaintiff was subject to the ABA T Defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 1 O(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Finally, Rule 23(a) requires that the class representative "fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This inquiry focuses "on uncovering 'conflicts of
interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.'" In re Flag Telecom
Holdings, 574 F.3d at 35 (quoting Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 625). Lead Plaintiff adequately
represents the Settlement Class because he has no individual interests or claims that are
antagonistic to the Class and has zealously represented the interests of the Class to date.

Additionally, Rule 23(g) states that the adequacy of Lead Plaintiff's counsel is
determined by four factors: ( 1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims; (2) counsel's experience in handling class actions; (3) counsel's knowledge of
the applicable law; and (4) the resources counsel commits to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(g)(l)(A). Pomerantz LLP has extensive experience and a stellar reputation in the field of
class action and securities litigation. See Walsh Deel. at Ex. 3 (Pomerantz LLP firm resume).
The firm has been appointed lead or co-lead counsel in many complex securities class actions
and has recovered substantial monies for its clients and class members. Lead Counsel will
continue to commit adequate resources to ensure that the Settlement Class is properly
represented in this Litigation.
19



Finally, the proposed Settlement Class meets the predominance and superiority

requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). To satisfy predominance, "a plaintiff must show that those issues
in the proposed action that are subject to generalized proof outweigh those issues that are subject
to individualized proof."' In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir.
2008) (citation omitted). This inquiry "tests whether a proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to
warrant adjudication by representation." Id. (citation omitted); see also Amgen, Inc. v.
Connecticut Ret. Plans and Trust Funds, ---U.S.---, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1196 (2013). There are
questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predominate over any individual
questions, specifically whether the ABA T Defendants' alleged actions, which were centralized
and uniform, violated federal securities laws and whether those violations were knowing or
reckless. These common issues predominate over any individual issues.

"Together with predominance, the superiority requirement 'ensures that the class will be
certified only when it would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote
uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or
bringing about other undesirable results."' Menkes, 270 F.R.D. at 99-100 (quoting Cordes & Co.
Fin. Servs., Inc. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91, 104 (2d Cir. 2007)) (other citations
omitted). "[C]lass treatment is often deemed superior in 'negative value' cases, in which 'each
individual class member's interest in the litigation is less than the anticipated cost of litigating
individually."' Menkes, 270 F.R.D. at 100 (citation omitted).

A class action is also superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. Members of the Settlement Class are not likely to (and many do
not have) an interest or the means to prosecute an individual case against the ABAT Defendants.

20



Additionally, concerns of efficiency and economy tip the scales in favor of litigating the issues in
one suit before this Court.

Because the Settlement Class meets all of the requirements for certification under Rule
23(a) and (b)(3), the Court grants final class certification of the Class solely for the purposes of
settlement.

IV. NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS.
Rule 23( e) provides that "the court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by the proposal." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(l).2 The purpose of the
notice is to "afford members of the class due process which, in the context of the [R]ule 23(b)(3)
class action, guarantees them the opportunity to be excluded from the class action and not be
bound by any subsequent judgment." Peters v. Nat'! R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483, 1486

(D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173-74 (1974)). A notice
program must provide the "best notice practicable under the circumstances including individual
notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." See Eisen, 417 U.S. at
173 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)). The Notice program utilized here, as set by the Preliminary
Approval Order, meets this standard.
The Notice program was carried out by a third-party claims administrator, Berdon Claims
Administration LLC (the "Claims Administrator" or "Berdon"), a nationally-recognized notice
and claims administration firm, under the supervision of Lead Counsel. See Rosenbaum Aff. at
~ 2. Berdon provided individual notice via first-class mail (the "Post Card Notice")3 to each

2 Moreover, "lf]or any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members
the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all
members who can be identified through reasonable effort." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
3 The use of a combination of a mailed post card directing class members to a more detailed
online notice has been approved by courts. See, e.g., In re Mutual Funds Investment Litig., MDL
No. 1586, 2010 WL 2342413, at *6-7 (D. Md. May 19, 2010); In re AT & T Mobility Wireless

21



member of the Settlement Class whose address was reasonably ascertainable. Id. at~ 3. Given
the small size of the Settlement, Lead Counsel sought to minimize notice costs by utilizing the
Post Card Notice, which provided the basic Settlement information and instructions for
Settlement Class members to access the highly-detailed Long Notice on the internet or request
that a Long Notice be mailed to them. Id. at~~ 4, 5. In addition, Berdon caused the summary
notice to be transmitted over PR Newswire and published in Investor's Business Daily. Id. at~ 9.

The Notice amply describes the terms of the Settlement, the claims at issue, the releases,
the process for objecting and opting out of the Settlement, how to make a claim, all pertinent
deadlines, and the time, date and place of the Final Approval hearing. Id. at~ 10. The effort to
inform Class members of the Settlement, and their rights and obligations associated therewith,
more than satisfies due process requirements. See In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552
F.2d 1088, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that notice must contain "an adequate description of
the proceedings written in objective, neutral terms, that ... may be understood by the average
absentee class member").

V.
REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL'S EXPENSES AND
LEAD PLAINTIFF'S A WARD ARE APPROVED.
A.
Lead Counsel's Expenses Are Reasonable and Were Necessary to Achieve
the Benefit Obtained.
In order to maximize the recovery to the Class members, Lead Counsel has chosen to
forgo any request for attorneys' fees. Lead Counsel does request reimbursement in the amount of
$115,000.00 for out-of-pocket expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in conjunction with
the prosecution of this action. The Walsh Declaration attests to the accuracy of Lead Counsel's
expenses. See Walsh Deel. at~~ 21-23. It is well established that expenses are properly

Data Servs. Sales Tax Litig., 789 F. Supp. 2d 935, 973 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (holding that postcard
notice was "more than sufficient" despite not providing detailed information about class
members' options and deadlines because website and claims administrator via phone did).

22



recovered by counsel. See, e.g., In re Jndep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig., 302 F. Supp. 2d
180, 183 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Milt/and Raleigh-Durham v. Myers, 840 F. Supp. 235, 239

(S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Attorneys may be compensated for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred and customarily charged to their clients, as long as they 'were incidental and necessary
to the representation' of those clients.").
Because the expenses were incurred with no guarantee of recovery, Lead Counsel had a
strong incentive to keep them at a reasonable level, and did so. Lead Counsel made a concerted
effort to avoid unnecessary expenditures and economize wherever possible. The expenses were
incurred for items necessary to the prosecution of the action, and Lead Counsel submits, are
reasonable. Moreover, Lead Counsel is requesting less than its total incurred expenses -further
highlighting the reasonableness of counsel's request for its discounted expenses. See Walsh Deel.
at Ex. 2 (Pomerantz LLP expense report). In addition, because the expenses were incurred for the
benefit of the Class and are of a type generally reimbursed in the marketplace, they should be
reimbursed from the common fund in the same manner as an individual client would reimburse
counsel's expenses.

a. An Award to Lead Plaintiff Is Reasonable.
The PSLRA permits Lead Plaintiff to seek an "award of reasonable costs and expenses
(including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class ...." 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(
a)(4). In accordance with the PSLRA, and the inherent powers of the Court, courts routinely
grant reimbursement of substantial sums to lead plaintiffs and class representatives. See Hicks,
2005 WL 2757792, at *10 ("Courts in [the Second] Circuit routinely award such costs and
expenses both to reimburse the named Plaintiffs for expenses incurred through their involvement

23



with the action and lost wages, as well as to provide an incentive for such plaintiffs to remain
involved in the litigation and to incur such expenses in the first place.").

Here, Lead Plaintiff at all times adequately represented the Class. Lead Plaintiff has no
individual interest or claim that is antagonistic to the Class and has represented the interests of
the Class zealously throughout the litigation. Moreover, Lead Plaintiff devoted substantial time
and effort to prosecuting the action, including time spent: reviewing pleadings, motions, and
other documents; searching for and producing documents; traveling to New York to appear for a
deposition; and communicating with counsel concerning the status of the case, and staying
apprised of all developments in the case, including discussions about the Settlement. See Walsh
Deel. at ~~ 24-26. The relatively modest request of an award in the amount of $3,000.00 to
compensate Lead Plaintiff for his time and service to the Class in this case, as well as to function
as an incentive to serve as lead plaintiff, is reasonable in this case.

24



CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby: (i) grants final approval of the Settlement
and Plan of Allocation; (ii) finally certifies the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement;

(iii) finds that notice to the Class satisfied due process; (iv) approves an award to the Lead
Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000; and (v) approves Lead Counsel's request for reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $115,000. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Docket No.
130 from the Court's list of pending motions and to close the files (l l-cv-2279, l l-cv-2354,
l l-cv-2849, l l-cv-3098, and 11-cv-3 729).
Dated: March 24, 2014

U.S.D.J.
BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL
25



Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 01.04.14 17:50:05
Beitrag Nr. 3.214 (46.747.127)
The substance of Lead Counsel's knowledge of the merits and potential weaknesses of
Plaintiffs claims are adequate to support the Settlement in this case. By the time the parties
agreed to settle this action, Lead Counsel had, among other things:

• reviewed and analyzed ABA T's Class Period and pre-Class Period public filings, annual
reports, press releases, quarterly earnings call and investment conference transcripts, and
other public statements;
• collected and reviewed a comprehensive compilation of analyst reports and major
financial news service reports on ABA T;
• reviewed and analyzed stock trading data relating to ABA T;
• utilized the services of a private investigator in China, who located and interviewed
ABA T customers and former employees, visited certain ABA T production facilities in
China and obtained ABA T's Chinese regulatory filings;
• researched, investigated, and drafted one of the initial complaints (Cohen Action, Dkt.
No. 1) and the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 52);
• researched and drafted the motion to appoint the Lead Plaintiff (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17, 40);
• researched and drafted memoranda opposing Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No.
79);
• researched and drafted Lead Plaintiffs motion to strike documents offered by the ABAT
Defendants (Dkt. Nos. 80, 81, 88); and
• researched and drafted Lead Plaintiffs motion for class certification (Dkt. Nos. 94, 95)
and supporting memoranda of law thereto.
While no merits discovery occurred in this case to date, Lead Counsel conducted targeted
post-Settlement discovery with respect to ABA T's recoverable assets. Thus, Lead Counsel is
knowledgeable with respect to possible outcomes and risks in this matter and, thus, able to
recommend the Settlement. See Global Crossing, 225 F.R.D. at 458 ("[T]he question is whether
the parties had adequate information about their claims .... ").


While Lead Counsel believes, based on their investigation, that Lead Plaintiff's claims
against the ABA T Defendants have merit, they also recognize that they would face substantial
hurdles. Defendants have articulated arguably credible defenses that could be accepted by the
Court or jury. Indeed, proving liability and establishing damages is far from a foregone
conclusion.

Was wohl heißt sie haben alles durchleuchtet und trauen ihnen immer noch nicht , glauben aber das sie
denen nichts nachweisen können . Daher geben sie auf und legen den Fall zu den Akten .
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 01.04.14 17:13:37
Beitrag Nr. 3.213 (46.746.831)
ich habe mich mal bei PACER angemeldet und
der fall 11-cv-02279-CM wird sich noch bis 06.06. hinziehen.
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 2/21/2014 before Judge Colleen McMahon. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Drevis, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transc riber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/31/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/10/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2014.(McGuirk, Kelly)

also eigentlich sind alle fälle erledigt , es handelt sich wohl um letzte fristen zwecks widerrufe , wenn ich das richtig verstehe . aber die 1000 stück hätte ich wohl besser nicht gekauft . aber gut .
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 29.03.14 18:11:21
Beitrag Nr. 3.212 (46.731.237)
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 28.03.14 15:29:25
Beitrag Nr. 3.211 (46.725.401)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.724.885 von Shaki am 28.03.14 14:41:00ich hab gelernt das man alle menschen ernst nehmen soll , aber wie du willst , ist `n freies land .
ich habe auch meine meinung oder so geändert , aber es kann ja sein das ich mich täusche , und dem so ist könnte es ja sein das ich die 1000 stück nochmal für 2 oder 3 euro loswerde , nicht das ich das glaube - ist aber möglich .
Avatar
Shaki
schrieb am 28.03.14 14:41:00
Beitrag Nr. 3.210 (46.724.885)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.724.275 von dirk3333 am 28.03.14 13:37:36und ernst genommen werden willst du natürlich auch noch?

Habe schon einige "komische" Figuren hier bei W-O kennengelernt, aber du toppst sie alle...

Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 28.03.14 13:37:36
Beitrag Nr. 3.209 (46.724.275)
wenn es euch interessiert wer den kurs heut hochgetrieben hat , um 15% , das war ich , ich bin nochmal rein und hab 1000 stück genommen , ich werde es bitter bereuen , aber man weiß ja nie .
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 27.03.14 18:48:06
Beitrag Nr. 3.208 (46.718.667)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.718.019 von chefadm am 27.03.14 17:28:47mir haben die nicht geantwortet , o.k. ich meinte auch so gehören vergast , erschossen , geteert und gefedert .
aber jeder der einen mail account hat kann ja selbst eine mail hinschicken . mailadressen gibt es dort ; http://abat.sys145.pkulab.com/a/English/CONTACT_US/
Avatar
chefadm
schrieb am 27.03.14 17:28:47
Beitrag Nr. 3.207 (46.718.019)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.709.945 von commie am 26.03.14 19:33:34Kann bitte jemand ABAT eine Mail schreiben, mit der Frage wie es jetzt weitergeht ? Ich erinnere mich nicht mehr wer die Mail beim letzten Mal geschrieben hatte, aber eine Antwort war doch zeitnah gekommen.
Bin gespannt.:rolleyes:
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 26.03.14 22:44:54
Beitrag Nr. 3.206 (46.711.667)
ja mach das ruhig , ab und zu die wahrheit ignorieren ist ja nicht ganz falsch , nicht wahr , dann tut es weniger weh .
Avatar
commie
schrieb am 26.03.14 22:40:15
Beitrag Nr. 3.205 (46.711.615)
Ja, dirki, du hast Ahnung.
Ja, dirki, du hast Erfahrung.
Ja, dirki, du kennst Dich mit 5-cent-Aktien gut aus.
Ich schalte dich jetzt trotzdem auf "ignore" (Ausblenden).
Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 26.03.14 19:49:19
Beitrag Nr. 3.204 (46.710.093)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.709.945 von commie am 26.03.14 19:33:34und was nutzt es nun ? geht der kurs durch die decke ? nö , und wieso nicht ?
weil er in bälde 5 cent kosten wird , das wird so kommen wie bei scei , ergo war das warten von denen die gewartet haben for nothing . wenn es anders wäre würde der kurs jetzt durch die decke gehen .
Avatar
commie
schrieb am 26.03.14 19:33:34
Beitrag Nr. 3.203 (46.709.945)
Publiziert im US-yahoo Forum: :

excerpt from the 26 page judgement:
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby:
(i) grants final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(ii) finally certifies the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement;
(iii) finds that notice to the Class satisfied due process;
(iv) approves an award to the Lead Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000;
and (v) approves Lead Counsel's request for reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $115,000.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Docket No.
130 from the Court's list of pending motions and to close the files (l l-cv-2279, l l-cv-2354, l l-cv-2849, l l-cv-3098, and 11-cv-3 729).

Dated: March 24, 2014
U.S.D.J.
BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL


Quelle (nachzitiert carlrib20122) http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/?&bn=bfa6494d-f15…
Avatar
janolo
schrieb am 26.03.14 15:37:33
Beitrag Nr. 3.202 (46.707.373)
scheint wieder ein bisserl Schwung reinzukommen.



Avatar
dirk3333
schrieb am 26.03.14 12:25:57
Beitrag Nr. 3.201 (46.705.399)
also ich habe in einem amiforum gelesen das dir richterin keiner einigung zustimmen wird die nicht beinhaltet das abat sich verpflichtet glaubhafte zahlen vorzulegen .
soll auch von pacer kommen , aber genau das ist ja das wo der hund begraben liegt , würden abat zahlen vorlegen wollen , und nur so könnten sie u.U. dafür sorgen das der kurs wieder steigt , hätten sie das ja schon 2011 , 20012 und 2013 machen können , dazu gehört dann auch eine jährliche hauptversammmlung und dazu gehört auch das der foo nicht seinen sohn in den vorstand holt weil er es so will , ohne die aktionäre einzubeziehen.
kurse von 3-4 euro wird man da nie wieder sehen .ganz im gegenteil , wenn die fälle jetzt wirklich endgültig abgeschlossen werden sollten , wird man nie wieder was von diesen leuten hören .
oder sieht jemand etwas das auch was anderes hindeutet ?
Avatar
tomstoxx1
schrieb am 26.03.14 12:16:20
Beitrag Nr. 3.200 (46.705.309)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.705.243 von Shaki am 26.03.14 12:09:52vielen dank !
Avatar
Shaki
schrieb am 26.03.14 12:16:15
Beitrag Nr. 3.199 (46.705.307)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.704.773 von tomstoxx1 am 26.03.14 11:14:34und ja, weitere Geduld wird wohl auch noch benötigt werden, sofern du ein Kursziel hast, das dem entspricht, was vor dem Absturz für ABAT bezahlt wurde.

Aber es wird wohl wieder etwas mehr Leben in den Kurs kommen...
Avatar
Shaki
schrieb am 26.03.14 12:09:52
Beitrag Nr. 3.198 (46.705.243)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.704.773 von tomstoxx1 am 26.03.14 11:14:34Quelle ist:
http://www.pacer.gov/

Brauchst aber einen Account um an die Meldung zu kommen...
Avatar
tomstoxx1
schrieb am 26.03.14 11:14:34
Beitrag Nr. 3.197 (46.704.773)
hallo nochmal,

kannst du bitte die quelle noch nennen?, danke.

heisst nun: die sammelkläger bekommen die 250000$ entschädigung und diese sammelklage ist vom tisch ?

aber weiterhin keine testierten jahresberichte und ein ausharren an der otc !

na dann hoch mit dir, du verklemmte teleskopstange !

grüsse tomstoxx1




Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben

Investoren, die diesen Wert beobachten, informieren sich auch über:

WertpapierPerf. in %
+0,82
+0,77
0,00
+1,93
0,00
+0,42
+2,43
-3,35
0,00
0,00