SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (137015)7/3/2012 3:56:57 PM
From: Cogito  Respond to of 213183
 
I think, maybe, that theory depends on more...."predictability"...than the Chinese legal system has.
I don't have enough knowledge of what really transpired at each step to say with any certain at all what went wrong. I'm sure the information that is available to me, or to anyone on this side of the lake, is only a small subset of the information we'd need to go too far beyond speculation.

All I can say is that it's clear that doing business in China involves a lot of risk, and one of the reasons is exactly what you mention. I agree that the courts there are not predictable. They aren't there to protect American interests, certainly, and we can't expect them to do that.



To: Win-Lose-Draw who wrote (137015)7/3/2012 7:10:28 PM
From: Sr K  Respond to of 213183
 
It could be that Proview made the deal that Apple thought it had made. But a creditors committee had the right to approve or reject it, and until they signed off on it, the court couldn't or wouldn't approve it. So the claims of the creditors of Proview (all Proview entities) skyrocketed, all the way to $2 billion.

I'd like to see how the $60 million relates to the valid claims of the creditors who were on the creditors committee.