Happy 2013 Heidi, and all – all through,
Yours is surely an interesting question.
Although I know better and despite the others' (short-seller profiteers) allegations against the Sino Forest enterprise itself, is it possible at all that I could be wrong I wonder, when I say that in due course the Company will be stronger than it was before? Be it as it may, in my view, it was never MGMT's intent to put SF out of commission forever. From the onset of Sino Forest's problems, MNGT/BOD not once came to their Company's or its shareholders defence. Why? But of course, the intent was to get rid of TRE's shares and award the Company to others. Certainly it wasn't because the Company didn't have the assets. As we have seen, getting rid of SF's shareholders was not a terribly difficult task -- none of SF's culprits have been questioned. On the contrary, Sino Forest's BOD had OSC do their dirty job.
While I do not base my assertion about SF's reinvention on the creation of NewCo I-II, still, what is the real purpose of the restructuring scheme? If the SFC was worthless, they could have let the whole thing disintegrate like other companies that are forced to go bankrupt do. No? If they were to be found guilty I fail to se of how the creation of the NewCo would have been of help to them....
Just as with China Forestry00930, a reorganized Sino Forest will be relisted once again, in my opinion; actually, I am absolutely certain of that. As for the OSC, I'm of the belief that it has no worthwhile evidence that it can use against Chan et al, even if it had chosen to, or have been at liberty to do so. Remember, Chairman Westston himself said that it was nearly impossible to penalize someone in a foreign jurisdiction.... I have revisited Chairman Weston's famous interview and I find him to be suspiciously vague and blatantly hesitant on the issue regarding questioning/disciplining Mr. Chan or any other from SF's gang.... For me he wasn't quite clear – it appears that the Chairman had difficulty dealing with this on record.