Neu auf wallstreet:online? Jetzt kostenlos registrieren!
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 14.08.14 15:36:49 von
    janolo
    Beiträge: 3.243
    ID: 1.150.252
    Aufrufe heute: 0
    Gesamt: 398.253


    Beitrag schreiben Ansicht: Die letzten 30 Beiträge
    In dieser Diskussion gibt es 15 Top-Beiträge. Zur Top-Ansicht wechseln
    Avatar
    janolo
    schrieb am 14.08.14 15:36:49
    Beitrag Nr. 3.243 (47.516.617)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.506.858 von Shaki am 13.08.14 17:30:01
    Avatar
    Shaki
    schrieb am 13.08.14 17:30:01
    Beitrag Nr. 3.242 (47.506.858)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.505.730 von janolo am 13.08.14 16:04:21Ja, diesmal aber nicht so explosionsartig. Lieber wäre mir eh ein langsamer, dafür aber nachhaltiger Anstieg.

    Das aktuelle Anziehen scheint auch ohne irgendwelche News getrieben zu sein. Vielleicht versuchen sich irgendwelche Insider unauffällig einzudecken. Könnte aber auch ein Trick sein andere zum Eindecken zu verleiten.

    Nun ja, warten wir es ab, wir haben ja Übung darin...
    Avatar
    janolo
    schrieb am 13.08.14 16:04:21
    Beitrag Nr. 3.241 (47.505.730)
    tut sich wohl mal wieder was :rolleyes:

    Avatar
    commie
    schrieb am 21.07.14 21:35:50
    Beitrag Nr. 3.240 (47.347.938)
    Hallo phranque,
    klar, kann man schon verstehen.
    Glauben ist sowieso nicht das Richtige, aber irgendwas wissen geht hier einfach nicht mehr (woher auch?).
    Reduziert hab ich auch schon und die Langfrist-Restchance ist reine Lotterie. Aber letztlich ist es bei allen Aktien nichts anderes, nicht zu reden von den sonstigen Wettspielen an der Börse.
    Viel (mehr) Glück dann beim nächsten Mal :)
    Avatar
    phranque
    schrieb am 21.07.14 10:02:23
    Beitrag Nr. 3.239 (47.343.150)
    ich bin jetzt raus!
    Keine Reaktion auf meine Mails,
    keine Teilnahme an Canton Fair (Scooter),
    keine Info an Shareholders,
    Website mal wieder down,
    Easyvelo hat ABAT ausgelistet.
    Ich glaub nicht mehr dran!
    Avatar
    ibmisout
    schrieb am 17.07.14 11:54:02
    Beitrag Nr. 3.238 (47.325.438)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.321.746 von startvestor am 16.07.14 19:59:30Schreib doch mal an den EX CFO, oder telefonier mit dem. Der redet ganz offen und kann Dir vielleicht nützliche Infos geben. Ich glaube an den Vorwürfen ist nichts dran. Ich habe ja bei CXDC gesehen, mit was für abstrusen Vorwürfen die ihre Maschinerie in Gang setzen. Gerade so ein kleines Startup ist da hoffnungslos verloren. Das geht schwer ins Geld und der Sinn weiter gelistet zu bleiben geht verloren. Solche Unternehmen bleiben nur an der Börse wenn sie weiteres Kapital brauchen, um Anleihen zu emittieren oder Kapitalerhöhungen durchzuführen.
    Da heißt es dann einfach, Going Dark, irgendwann und mit dem verbliebenen Kapital einfach langsam wachsen. Wenn das Unternehmen dann mal richtig groß ist werden die eine Einigung mit den Altaktionären suchen.
    Bin mal gespannt ob der ex CFO sein Wort bei CXDC hält. Der ist richtig angepisst. Schade das Ken Ren nicht so offen redet. Bei dem denkt man immer
    der vermeidet alles um irgendein Wort zu sagen mit dem man ihn festnageln kann.
    Aber mir reichts jetzt. Ich erweitere jetzt jeden Tag den Verteiler.
    Es scheint übrigens so das ein Franchise System mit 200 Geschäften steht, das den Farmern gehört und die halt Food und Dünger bei CGA kaufen.
    Das Franchise System scheint aber nicht direkt unter CGA aufgehängt und deswegen bin ich gerade am klären. Also der Umsatz läuft dann schon, für CGA aber wem gehören die Rechte am Franchise. Wenn das mal richtig brummt, dann kann das wichtig sein. Wie gesagt Vermutungen, Interpretationen, wenn ich Gewißheit habe schreibe ich das ins CGA Board, wir sind ja eh unter uns.
    Avatar
    startvestor
    schrieb am 16.07.14 19:59:30
    Beitrag Nr. 3.237 (47.321.746)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.304.430 von ibmisout am 13.07.14 20:25:03Bin hier ja schon länger draußen, ausnahmsweise mit Gewinn. Wie erwartet gibts auch weiter keine Geschäftsberichte, Fu denkt da gar nicht dran. Der Rechtsstreit war doch letztendlich eine Lachnummer, hat gut als Ausrede hingehalten, keine Berichte zu liefern.

    Das gute an Abat ist das tolle Sentiment. Würde mich nicht wundern, wenn sie mal wieder gepusht würden. Kann aber auch wieder auf 0,06 USD fallen.
    Avatar
    ibmisout
    schrieb am 13.07.14 20:25:03
    Beitrag Nr. 3.236 (47.304.430)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 47.253.266 von pinkominko am 03.07.14 11:52:06Hallo,

    bin gerade auf ABAT gestoßen weil in Seeking Alpha , meine Aktie "CXDC" verrissen wurde. Ich habe die meisten Anschuldigungen überprüft und für unbegründet befunden. ABAT hate in 2008 den jetzigen CFO von CXDC:

    >>From May 2008 to March 2009, Mr. Zhang served as Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc (Nasdaq: ABAT). From 2007 to 2008, he served as Executive Vice President of Finance of China Natural Gas, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHNG)<<

    Einer von Euch schrieb das er eine Kauforder nicht ausgeführt bekommen hat.
    Ähnliche Erfahrungen hatte ich in ähnlichen Situationen ebenfalls gemacht.

    Euer Investment hier war extrem spekulativ. Batterie Technologien in China, aber auch in den USA koennen "Flop" oder "Top" sein. Das ein schwach kapitalisiertes Unternehmen hier nicht bestehen kann ist keine große Überraschung. Aus Sicht der Chinesen wird es ein Riesenfehler gewesen sein über eine US Börse gegangen zu sein. Schließlich dient ein Börsengang dazu sich Kapital zu beschaffen und ggfs. günstig neu zu beschaffen, falls es die Expansion erfordert.

    Wann gab es denn den letzten Geschäftsbericht. Habt Ihr dazu einen Link ?

    Es gab da ja ein Settlement. Die Anwälte haben ihr Geld gemacht. Die Aktionäre wohl kaum.
    Kann einer von Euch sagen was konkret an der Klage Bestand hatte ?
    Vermutlich gab es nur eine Einigung damit das Management nicht weiter von den Anwälten mit Forderungen belastet wird. Das ist eigentlich ein Zeichen das man eine vernünftige Lösung sucht.
    Avatar
    pinkominko
    schrieb am 03.07.14 11:52:06
    Beitrag Nr. 3.235 (47.253.266)
    Hier noch eine weitere Quelle, die den Kursanstieg gestern erklären kann http://online.wsj.com/articles/lg-chem-bets-on-electric-vehicles-in-china-1404271244
    Avatar
    pinkominko
    schrieb am 03.07.14 11:45:22
    Beitrag Nr. 3.234 (47.253.200)
    http://www.bidnessetc.com/22395-china-bak-battery-continues-rally/
    Avatar
    phranque
    schrieb am 19.06.14 10:19:22
    Beitrag Nr. 3.233 (47.174.848)
    18. Juni 2014, lud die mächtigen Gruppenausstellung Veranstalter CIBF Batterie, Batterie CIBF Ausstellung von chinesischen Chemische und physikalische Power Industry Association Eleventh China International Battery Seminar, im Shenzhen Convention and Exhibition Center Grand Opening . CIBF2014 Ausstellungsfläche von über 60.000 Quadratmetern, mehr als 3.000 Ständen. CIBF2014 wird Möglichkeiten für in-und ausländischen Unternehmen, um von Angesicht zu Angesicht zu kommunizieren, für inländische Nutzer, Einkäufer, Händler bieten eine große Anzahl von qualitativ hochwertigen Produkten, bieten eine Plattform für den Handel von Herstellern und Anwendern.
    Die Ausstellung zeigte die mächtige Gruppe umfangreiche Produktpalette, zusammen mit der Batterie-Industrie spielt eine zunehmend wichtige Rolle in der nationalen Lebens, begann mehr und mehr Unternehmen auf die Entwicklung der Batterie-Industrie konzentrieren, aber viele Käufer werden Freunde Kaufleute, als Export-Umsatz im zweiten Halbjahr dieses Jahres und im nächsten Jahr eine solide Grundlage.

    Quelle:
    http://www.zqpt.com/a/guanyuwomen/jituanxinwen/20140618/503.html

    Ich habe mir vor einigen Tagen mal den Spass gemacht, die Telefonnummern aus der Website abzutelefonieren und nach Herrn Fu zu fragen:

    Headquarters
    Address: 15 West 39th Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10018 USA
    Tel: 1-212-3912752
    Fax: 1-212- 3912751
    E-mail: abatob@gmail.com
    >> tot

    Dongguan Qiang Qiang Amperex (New Energy) Co., Ltd.
    No. 3 Middle Road or No.71 Shunfeng Road,Qingxi Town
    Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, P.R. China
    Post code:523660
    Tel:0769-81289333
    Sales Tel:0769-82851969 or 0086-769-82851968
    >> not payed the fee

    Harbin ZhongQiang Power-Tech Co., Ltd.
    Address: No.1 Weiyou Road, Economy & Technology Development Zone, Shuangcheng City,Heilongjiang Province, P.R. of China
    Tel :86 -451-53118471
    Fax :86 -451-53116419
    E-mail: zhongqiang@zqpt.com
    >> call tomorrow

    Wuxi Angell Autocycle Co., Ltd.
    Address: No. 18 Yufeng Road,Shuofang Industrial Park, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province,
    Tel :86 -510-85496008
    Fax :86 -510-85261032
    E-mail: abatcn@126.com
    >> tuut tuut

    Beijing Representative Office
    Address: Room 510,Guanghua ChangAn Building, No.7 Jianguomennei Avenue, Beijing, P.R. of China
    Tel : 01055 0086 -10-65102007
    Fax :86 -10-65102400
    E-mail: abat.bj @ gmail.com
    >> geht ran, Mr. Fu war aber nicht da.

    Hong Kong office
    Address: Block 1 ,17 / F, Kowloon 6, Tsim Sha Tsui,33 Canton Road, Hong Kong
    Phone :00852 -23981826
    Fax : 00852 -27890488
    >> Verwirrung

    Ich habe dann ein paar Mal eine Mail an Mr. Fu gesendet, bislang leider nie eine Antwort erhalten.

    Als Reaktion darauf dachte ich, ich verkaufe meine restlichen Stücke (50%) - vielleicht wär's auch gut zu verdoppeln (siehe oben / unten)?

    Aus Abatevents privatem Newsletter von heute:
    Dear Shareholders,
    In early March of 2014, ABAT rose to $1.00 on over 2 million shares. This coincided with several Tesla announcements including an Electric Car Race which moved the stock from $200 to $250. This week Tesla announced that it would open up its patents for other battery companies and electric vehicle companies.
    See Tesla Opens Up Its Patents
    Another run up to $1.00 would be a big welcome and tomorrow should be an indication if we are going higher again.
    This week ABAT also announced on its website its attendance at the CIBF 2014 Exhibition Conference. See ABAT at CIBF
    Some shareholders have been satisfied with the answers from Robert Brantl, ABAT's attorney and Jimmy Zong, ABAT's Board Secretary. Writing or calling them is likely to be effective.
    Encourage them to make some Press release and establish a committee to take advantage of Tesla's recent offer.
    Good luck to all!!! Hope to see you above $1.00 again soon.
    Sincerely
    ABATEvents
    Avatar
    janolo
    schrieb am 12.05.14 16:44:07
    Beitrag Nr. 3.232 (46.965.434)
    Zitat von janoloscheint wieder ein bisserl Schwung reinzukommen.





    alles wieder zurück auf LOS ;)
    bis zum "vielleicht" naächsten Ausbruch mal
    Avatar
    dirk3333
    schrieb am 01.05.14 13:23:12
    Beitrag Nr. 3.231 (46.905.844)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.905.210 von phranque am 01.05.14 11:00:44naja , ich habe ja dort http://advanced-battery-technologies-inc.com/ meine ansichten zur schau gestellt ,
    und http://www.abatelectricscooter.com/ war eine ganze zeit irgendwie weg , oder träume ich das ?
    ich bilde mir ein das , wenn man vor 4 wochen auf diese seite wollte man direkt dort http://abat.sys145.pkulab.com/a/English/CONTACT_US/hinkam .???

    ich bin halt raus , schon lange und mag auch nicht mehr rein , ich trau denen endgültig nicht mehr .
    habe die zwar noch auf meiner liste , werde aber sicher nicht mehr einsteigen .
    Avatar
    phranque
    schrieb am 01.05.14 11:00:44
    Beitrag Nr. 3.230 (46.905.210)
    Hi Dirk,
    den big bang zum Ausstieg hab ich leider verpasst -
    Anfang März war ich im Schneeurlaub und ziemlich blockiert (auch bei BLDP).
    Trotzdem kann ich im Moment günstiger einkaufen als ich verkauft habe.
    Auf das ursprüngliche Niveau gehe ich aber (wahrscheinlich) nicht mehr.
    Die Stimmung hier ist wirklich mies - auf Ariva nichts mehr zu lesen.
    Auf Yahoo muss man sich fragen, wieso lbcb321 permanent nonstop 24/7 alles kommentiert und basht.
    Das ist entweder krankhaft oder bewusst. Zu welchem Zweck?

    Gestern kam mal wieder ein NL von abatevents:
    Dear Shareholders,
    The website www.abatelectricscooter.com has been reactivated with links to the recent Final Order Approving the Class Action.
    Now we need ABAT to file with the SEC and call a shareholder meeting. We need to reestablish trust between the shareholders and ABAT's management.
    Some shareholders have been satisfied with the answers from Robert Brantl, ABAT's attorney and Jimmy Zong, ABAT's Board Secretary. Writing or calling them is likely to be effective.
    If you would like to support these actions, please write to ABATEvents@gmail.com. We will assemble a team and move forward!
    The Share price rose to above $1.00 recently.
    Good luck to all!!! Hope to see you above $1.00 again soon.
    Sincerely
    ABATEvents


    Eigentlich dachte ich die seine abgetaucht.
    Mal sehen was hier noch geht - Totalausfall oder > 1 US$

    Gruß nach Solingen
    Frank
    Avatar
    dirk3333
    schrieb am 30.04.14 22:27:07
    Beitrag Nr. 3.229 (46.904.054)
    Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 46.903.942 von phranque am 30.04.14 21:55:11sei doch froh , willste wirklich den scheiß kaufen ?
    Avatar
    phranque
    schrieb am 30.04.14 21:55:11
    Beitrag Nr. 3.228 (46.903.942)
    Am 28.04.14 habe ich um 11:45 Uhr tagesgültig eine Kauforder in Stuttgart eingestellt, 10.000 Stück, Limit 0,28. Bei einer simulierten Verkaufsorder ist mir dann aufgefallen, dass nicht meine Kauforder angezeigt wurde, sondern ein BID zu einem geringeren Stückpreis. Um 14:41, 25,000 Stck zu 0,278 und um 20:44 Uhr 30.000 Stück zu 0,247. Laut Auskunft der Börsenaufsicht in Stuttgart liege es im Ermessen des jeweiligen Maklers die Geld und Briefkurse zu stellen! Bekommen hab ich keine!
    Avatar
    phranque
    schrieb am 29.04.14 20:56:02
    Beitrag Nr. 3.227 (46.896.332)
    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
    Von: ABAT [mailto:abatob@gmail.com]
    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 16:06
    Betreff: Re: Abat Stock

    Frank:

    the management is discussing a post-class action recovery plan. the company will inform shareholders when a decision is made.

    thank you.


    Für alle, die durchhalten wollen!
    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 .




    Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben

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

    WertpapierPerf. %
    +1,10
    0,00
    +2,46
    -0,56
    +0,52
    +0,20
    +0,87
    -0,72
    -0,18
    -0,82