Waldo Mushman's  Instablog

Waldo Mushman
Send Message
At first glance many situations appear obvious. Rigorous examination may reveal that the obvious is in fact impossible. My focus is on companies that unethically sell the impossible and thrive only with financial slight of hand. I am a retired businessman living near Austin Texas and I both... More
  • CSKI and the Missing Link 5 comments
    Mar 19, 2011 2:07 PM | about stocks: CSKI, CCME, ONP, CHBT
    Shaky Structure
    A very common corporate structure used by Chinese reverse mergers is a three tiered stack of holding companies. The US traded entity (Gramps) owns nothing but shares of stock in a second holding company (Dad). Dad is often located in a tax friendly locale such as BVI and also owns nothing but stock in the third tier (The Kid) which owns the Chinese operations. The Kid has title to everything and has effective control over all operations. US shareholders must look to Gramps who must look to Dad before they get up close and personal with the valuable assets they presumably own. This structure is fraught with risk for the simple reason that Gramps has no enforceable legal claim on what The Kid owns. Dad has a claim but even that is tenuous based on the limitations of China-US financial treaties.

    CSKI’s Missing Link
    To exhibit the frailty of this construct let me turn to one of China’s more noted RTO’s, China Sky One Medical (OTCPK:CSKI). In CSKI’s situation; Gramps is Nasdaq traded and domiciled in Nevada, Dad is the non-public holding company American California Pharmaceutical Group (ACPG) domiciled in California and The Kid is Harbin TDR waving hello from the distant windows of Harbin City, China.  As is fairly evident, this chain of ownership depends on Dad (ACPG) taking care of the family business. Ponder for a moment the implications to the US shareholders if that link was missing. Presume Dad died. What does Gramps have to say when The Kid won’t return his phone calls. The Kid never liked Gramps anyway and now that Dad has died The Kid has no obligation to Gramps and decides to keep everything. Gramps can bark at the moon as far as the law (and The Kid) are concerned. Sounds farfetched? CSKI will gladly show you otherwise.

    Good Standing
    California corporations are required to pay franchise taxes and report annually to the state. They are also required to have a registered agent to accept legal documents. To claim “Good Standing” in the state you must comply with these simple rules. Failure to comply, results in suspension or revocation of your charter. You no longer have good standing. This is the corporate equivalent of death. In CSKI’s story Dad has died. ACPG no longer has good standing in California. They had their charter suspended in 2008, briefly revived it in October 2009 but it was immediately resuspended for unpaid taxes. 100% of CSKI’s China assets are owned by a defunct California Corporation.
    A lack of good standing translates into being unable to legally transact any business. You cannot defend yourself in court,  sue anyone, make binding contracts, validly receive or transfer ownership of assets, or conduct recordable business of any kind. Tax collectors in California could attach everything ACPG owns and offer it at public auction to satisfy the unpaid tax bill. The only thing ACPG owns is stock. Just to complicate the matter even more, ACPG no longer employs a registered agent. If the State of California, or anyone else in the world…hmmm, chose to sue ACPG the complaint goes unanswered and a summary judgment would naturally follow.

    Hello? Anybody home?
    Investors might be forgiven if they feel that Dad’s passing was worth noting. Was the omission purposeful? Considering Dad expired in 2008 and three 10-Ks have whistled past his grave, I suspect well planned neglect. It strikes me as beyond negligent for a "healthy" company to let it’s business license lapse and dismiss the registered agent. Maybe The Kid is expecting Gramps to kick off too. Silly to renew National Geo for the geezer when he has less than a month to live. CSKI should serve as a stark warning to investors in these FrankenCorps how unexpectedly a holding company can lose its grip.

    CSKI Implications
    Franchise taxes are normally a trivial item in the life of a corporation. The obvious question is why are these taxes unpaid.  It is not an oversight as evidenced by the October 2009 attempt to revive the charter and the very quick return to suspended status. In January of 2010 the Chinese government required certified evidence from all .cn domain owners that the entity existed. ACPG was the owner of the Harbin TDR domain. Unable to provide a valid corporate charter to the government, that web site was shut down with several hundred thousand other .cn domains.

    My belief is that the IOU to California stems from the PIPE financing completed in April 2008. Funding to China was routed through ACPG. Best guess is that the tax bill for that transaction was ~$60,000. I suspect that CSKI intended to shutter ACPG and never pay the tax but were unable to do so. With penalties and interest the current tax bill is likely in excess of $100,000. CSKI tries to convince investors that they are capable of spending $37,000,000 on forest leases but they can’t convince themselves to pay a seemingly small tax bill.
    As a final thought, consider that ownership records maintained by the Chinese government identify ACPG as the sole owner of Harbin TDR and all its subsidiaries. CSKI is not mentioned anywhere in the official records of China. China has never heard of CSKI and has nothing to indicate that CSKI has legal claim to anything. CSKI cannot prove they own any assets in China.
    Buyer be very wary. I am cheerfully short CSKI and predict the ongoing SEC investigation will shut them down.

    Business Entity Detail

    Data is updated weekly and is current as of Friday, March 11, 2011. It is not a complete or certified record of the entity.
    Entity Name:
    Entity Number:
    Date Filed:
    Entity Address:
    Entity City, State, Zip:
    HARBIN CHINA 150001
    Agent for Service of Process:
    Agent Address:
    Agent City, State, Zip:
    15 F3d 1086 Lloyd Myers Co Inc v. Department of Agriculture
    Under California law, a corporation, which has been suspended for failure to pay franchise taxes, is prohibited from conveying property or enforcing a contract. Usher v. Henkel, 205 Cal. 413, 417 (1928); Damato v. Slevin, 214 Cal.App.3d 668, 674 (1989); see also Mather Constr. Co. v. United States, 475 F.2d 1152, 1155 (Cl.Ct.1973) ("Under the law of California, a corporation which has been suspended for failure to pay franchise taxes is prohibited from suing, from defending a suit, or from appealing from an adverse decision."). We have stated that upon suspension of a corporate franchise, the business entity "[can] not function as a corporation and [is] incapable of exercising corporate powers for any business purpose." McLaughlin Land & Livestock Co. v. Bank of America, 94 F.2d 491, 493 (9th Cir.1938).
    869 F2d 1235 Community Electric Service of Los Angeles Inc v. National Electrical Contractors Association Inc
    Section 23301 of the California Revenue and Tax Code provides that the Franchise Tax Board may suspend the rights, powers and privileges of a corporation for nonpayment of taxes. A delinquent California corporation may neither bring suit nor defend a legal action. E.g., Reed v. Norman, 48 Cal.2d 338, 309 P.2d 809, 812 (1957). We have repeatedly acknowledged this as the law of California. See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, 791 F.2d 666, 668 (9th Cir.1985) (reversing refusal to grant continuance in order to enable corporation to revive itself)
    Verification of Non Payment of Franchise Taxes

    This is to notify you that process service attempt information has been updated for your One Legal Order:

    Order #: 6737346
    Case #: 10-cv-1091
    Party to Serve: American California Pharmaceutical Group, Inc. C/O United Corporate Services

    Updated Service Attempt Information:
    Attempt Time
    1/20/2011 3:54 PM
    608 University Avenue, Sacramento,CA 95825
    Not found
    Per Lauren Morales, they're no longer agent for service for company. They were suspended.

    To view complete details about this order, please click the link below or copy and paste the address into your browser:


    If you have any questions or need assistance, please send an email to support@onelegal.com, and feel free to contact our Customer Support department Monday through Friday from 8:15 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. at 800-938-8815

    Thank you for choosing One Legal.

    One Legal 116A-SOP Northern Branch Fax 510-873-0984


    Disclosure: I am short OTCPK:CSKI, OTCPK:CCME, ONP, OTC:CHBT.
    Stocks: CSKI, CCME, ONP, CHBT
Back To Waldo Mushman's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (5)
Track new comments
  • Roger Lucas
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    What a joke. My best guess, My belief, it is likely, is very common. etc... as usual from John, not a fact in it. And of course, John would never contact the company for clarification of any of his guesses or beliefs.
    23 Mar 2011, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Xisiqomelir
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
    I see a multitude of facts, actually.


    The CSKI -> ACPG -> Harbin TDR chain of control is a matter of fact.


    ACPG's delinquent status in California is a matter of fact.


    CSKI's hilariously mismatched SEC and SAIC filings are a matter of fact and public record.


    CSKI management's opinions on the above are both irrelevant and highly likely to be misleading, since they have not been particularly open about the status of ACPG.


    I am curious if your hostility stems from a compensated position in this stock, or merely natural long antipathy to a successful short thesis.


    Disclosure: No CSKI positions. Short CAGC, AUTC and YONG. Generally sceptical of the China RTO space.
    23 Mar 2011, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Roger Lucas
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    Can you explain the necessity of ACPG? Could it be only a fee sucker that no longer serves any legal purpose and CSKI allowed it to elapse? That’s why you talk to the company before going off without engaging all your brain cells.


    The SEC and SAIC filing differences are debated by many as mute. (see link)
    CSKI restated 2007, 2008, & 2009 SAIC’s, with 2010 due out this month. What is your purpose of attacking one of the few Chinese companies that corrected their SAIC’s? I see all of your 15 comments attack the same stocks that Waldo shorts. You accuse me of being a pumper?
    24 Mar 2011, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Roger Lucas
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    “Missing Link” another John Bird Fraud
    Do you believe this is “breaking news”? Do you believe this blog was original material from John? Sorry, the fraudster got you again.


    This is recycled news from 2009 from Manuel Arsenio. Twice it was posted by Arsenio in 2009 and was met with a big yawn from the investment community. The link below is dated November 24, 2009. Read the last third of the blog.




    I have researched every posting and article from John Bird for nearly 2 years, there is no “truth” in this man.
    28 Mar 2011, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • contrarianvalueplays
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    John Bird's piece is full of inaccuracies, falsehoods and fibs. There are several of these in just this one snippet from John: "This is the corporate equivalent of death. In CSKI’s story Dad has died. ACPG no longer has good standing in California." ACPG never died and is very much alive. Its also back in good standing. While ACPG's suspension has given John the ammunition to spin fairy tales around it and may have cost the company a few extra dollars, there is no lasting material harm from it.


    Later, John wrongly refers to ACPG as "defunct" and his referral to "its passing" is wrong as well. A suspended company has not died nor is it dead, passed or defunct. John you don't understand basic corporate law. By the way, ACPG is back in "good standing" and is very much alive as a corporation. Its not surprising you haven't updated your readers with this nugget.
    18 Apr 2011, 02:33 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments

Most Commented
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.