Heidi, in your opinion, do you suppose the OSC (Chairman Wetston) in Sino Forest case stands by his ruling independently? In my view, Sino Forest's picture is entirely upside-down, regardless from what side is viewed? Since Carson Block's introduction, SF's developments in and of themselves are highly questionable -- as in corrupt-corrupt. While on one hand the parties responsible for SF's affairs present us with a picture saying or wanting to say that they are working independently, on the other though, judging from the developments, everything about their moves and posture suggests that they are working in symphony. But, what could OSC's motive be for it to be handling the Sino Forest case so harshly?
Likelihood: 1) OSC's Chairman sees fraud worth enough destroying a large Enterprise; 2) he has no use for retail shareholders; 3) he caved to political pressure; 4) heavy duty bribery is involved (somewhere); and 5) he is simply doing his job in accordance with the laws of the land and OSC's rules he must abide by in a situation such as SF's. However, the fact that for 17 years everything about Sino Forest's ownership issue was of no issue at all for the OSC, I'm tempted to completely exclude possibility #5. Of course, there could be more reasons to explain OSC's heavy-hand in this case.