| Latest Forum Topics / YuuZoo Networks |
|
|
Yuuzoo - The truth must be revealed!
|
|||||
|
bigdragon966
Senior |
11-May-2017 12:00
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
yuuzoo still have not answered -  Who is that ' big-4' that come out with the unique model?       |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
huangyuanhe
Supreme |
11-May-2017 11:53
Yells: "666" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
i dont think yuuzoo will sue their former FC.
If sue, lots of details of company dealings will be revealed (the insides of the insides) when FC defends himself. FC knows the structure well. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
alishan
Senior |
11-May-2017 11:48
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
.... but you help spreading negative posting so U-Sue also wants to sue you.   All money collected from suing can be then distributed to SSH.  
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Stanton
Veteran |
11-May-2017 11:48
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
What talkin you? Why must sue? Even if the zoo wins and FC goes to jail so what? Shareholders not interested, the zoo is only distracting shareholders from the real issue. You think the zoo's real issues have been resolved? Just ask the zoo to get a clean audit report that does not differ from what they have been announcing to the market. Show the revenues and profits generated by franchisees and get this certified by a Big4. Cheaper and more efficient than suing. If numbers good guarantee share price fly upwards faster than rocket to the moon. If negative then sink to bottom of the sea, say goodbye to the zoo.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Mark86
Member |
11-May-2017 11:35
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Looking at its messy business dealings, I believe the lawsuit against FC won' t be the last. I feel there might be more to come. All these lawsuits and stuff would only deter investors from putting money in this junk stock lol
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
Demostation
Supreme |
11-May-2017 11:32
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
One must understand that when there is an allegation of fraud, many parties would be involved.   Even the customer would have to answer to his own shareholders why he involved in the fraud?   So Yuuzoo might want to come out clean and the only way is to sue those responsible.   Lol. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Mark86
Member |
11-May-2017 11:30
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Btw I am not the author but the points raised by that author are in resonance with what i have questioned last time.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Mark86
Member |
11-May-2017 11:26
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
When I was still an investor, I used to question on its Yuuinvestor network the rationale of collecting payment in shares as is extremely risky and who will they sell their shares to in the event they want to realise the value from their shares. But no reply with regard to this was given, other than the politically correct answer that they believe those companies' share will appreciate in the future (in any case what makes them so sure). I even suggested they collect half of their revenue in cash, others in shares. Maybe this is more practical and less risky. But apparently my point was not taken. I find it both funny and disheartened at the same time that now this zoo is trying to sue its FC. Instead of focusing on their business, they want to create all kinds of hoo-ha , sue here sue there. A proper business would not anyhow go into litigation as it is extremly costly and time-consuming. Maybe this zoo thinks that by suing the FC, it is able to salvage reputation and thus stablise their share price. However, market is sharp and can see what kind of business it is building and delivering. If the business is not good, nothing you do shall help the share price.  This zoo really a clown of SGX. I think it should just FO from SGX. But if FO then no more entertainment le. lol
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
Demostation
Supreme |
11-May-2017 11:26
|
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
There is every possibility that the author could be sued, because the article is about frauds and not just a balanced opinion. But the difficulty is to get to know who is the author. I think the owner of the domain might be the recipient of any legal correspondence about the article.  Just opining.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
bigdragon966
Senior |
11-May-2017 11:17
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
is yuuzoo going to sue the author?  
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Demostation
Supreme |
11-May-2017 11:06
|
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
Most franchises or licensing agreements to use Yuuzoo' s payment and other products or services are paid by shares in lieu of cash.   This method so far is much disdained by many people whoever they are.   But I think there are some pros and some cons in this method.   We have to look at what is involved, and what is the production end of the arrangement. If a licencee makes losses in his business, Yuuzoo might not get any returns except that in the case where the said business has much business, goodwill and organisation in managment and staff, Yuuzoo may earn an acquisition of a new subsidiary or child company in its group. Of course a losing one which much efforts might be needed to shape it up in finance, staffing or logistics, might require some good guidance or restructuring. If a licencee makes profits in his business, Yuuzoo might be able to squeeze out funds from the company, or make an acquisition of the profitable company. Perhaps because the above logics have some loopholes which we are not able to find, a number of FCs may not like the idea, but unable to come up with alternatives, otherwise a change of program would ensue of which sofar nothing have been heard off.   Thus lets analyse and be fair to Yuuzoo. Just my opinion which may be not acceptable.   I have very little shares in Yuuzoo.   A few lots. Tell me should I buy or should I sell?   Lol. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Stanton
Veteran |
11-May-2017 10:41
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I stumbled across this very intersting postong that was published on 7 Sep 2016 warning investor about yuuzoo. Very well analysed and explained.
https://www.investingnote.com/posts/27201 "Yuuzoo(AFC) seems fraudulent to me. I don't think their "tribal concept" social commerce network integrating social, e-commerce and gaming is viable. Go to yuuzoo.com, take a look at the posts that have been put up and it's apparent that hardly anyone is on the network. What's more, the only few recent posts I found were actually posted by employees at Yuuzoo (search their names on linkedin). If you take a look at their e-commerce revenue and cost of sales, it seems like they actually made a net loss in 1H profits from that segment, despite them playing up the big rise in revenue. Furthermore, the company does not make clear how it recognises revenue from the e-commerce segment. It might even be possible that third party products listed on their services provided to other companies have their listing price recognised as revenue, and costs charged as cost of sale. I have not been able to find anything in their annual reports specifying how they recognise revenue in such cases where they are basically acting as the middleman (imagine booking.com recognising the hotel prices for transactions as revenue, when their actual net revenue is the commission fees they can charge the hotels). Revenue from franchise is the main contributor towards net profit figures. Net profit looks surprisingly healthy, but most of this revenue comes in the form of shares in franchisees. This is not definitely bad for the company there is a chance that management has superior insights about future profitability of the franchises and really believes in their product. But it is also telling that an overwhelming majority of payment comes in this form, and that management has continued to accept shares as payment even though their cash position has dwindled and investors/auditor have voiced concerns about the actual value of these shares accepted as payment. Under IFRS rules, these shares can indeed be recognised at "market value". But the shares here are not publicly traded or widely known and paid attention to. The management deals with this by conducting their own valuation of the shares offered, using NPV estimations of future profits. This is downright sketchy to me I don't think any model can sufficiently forecast future profits. And it is not negligible if these shares make up the majority of your profits. Management can essentially increase their revenue by hiking up the value of these shares at transaction if they take a more optimistic view of future profits from the franchise. These shares are, of course, difficult to liquidate. I'm not sure who will buy them. If Yuuzoo tries to sell them to increase cash, they will probably have to sell them at a loss compared to recognised value on balance sheet simply because no one will be interested in these companies these are risky investments themselves. The fact that Yuuzoo continues to accept these payments suggest to me that they have difficulty getting these companies to pay in cash (because their service is not all that they make it up to be) or that they want to inflate their revenue today. I'm pessimistic about future cashflows from these shares because I don't think their e-commerce offering does not stand a chance against more established products by Amazon, alibaba or even new start-ups, and nobody seems to be actually using it despite all the publicity that the company has made in the past. Will this be the Enron of Singapore?" |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
sheerluck
Supreme |
11-May-2017 10:35
Yells: "Work for your money first then let your money work for you" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Today, we are happy to announce the release of a new apps called YouCanSukaSukaSue.   This app allows you to, as thename suggest, anyhow sue anyone or anything*.   This is one of the latest innovation from our company.   With this apps, you can practically sue anyone or anything.   We believe the market for YouCanSukaSukaSue is super huge. *Super small fine print:   with the exception of the conmany that come out with the apps....which is us lah....
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Stanton
Veteran |
11-May-2017 10:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
SGX queries PSL over resignation of FC, numerous departures of key personnel and any disagreements with management. Yuuzoo case is far more seirous 5 CFO and 1 FC plus many Independent Directors, CEO andnother key staff. FC already publicly said he resigned due to disagreement with revenue recognition calculations, very serious indeed. Why no query or investigation on this yet query PSL? I simply don't understand.
https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/prod-sgx-attachments/20170510_160205_BLL_EI9MX35D39WB23T0.1.pdf |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
edwinjup
Supreme |
11-May-2017 04:07
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
sue fc..?? who foot the bill?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Maller
Elite |
11-May-2017 00:48
|
||||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
Next week cheong arr, cheong to 11 cents??..My fair value at least 18 cents. DYODD |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Stanton
Veteran |
11-May-2017 00:12
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Looks like this zooker like to sue and enjoys being sued. Backyard already on fire with undisclosed Heckler case, fire fighting with auditors, don't know who else out ther now suing this zooker. Don't know whether they will file police report on forumers and sue forumers. Then maybe also sue sharejunction until they surrendered and change the name to ZooJunction.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
golden_SGX
Master |
10-May-2017 14:24
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Just short along with them .... anyway SGX is meant for shortist paradise.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
sheerluck
Supreme |
10-May-2017 12:47
Yells: "Work for your money first then let your money work for you" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Bro for your benefit.   Read this and especially take note of the red bits.   https://www.law360.com/articles/804648/social-media-co-floats-counsel-dq-bid-in-securities-row Social Media Co. Floats Counsel DQ Bid In Securities RowBy  Y. Peter Kang Law360, Los Angeles (June 7, 2016, 7:52 PM EDT) -- Counsel for investors of social media company Yuuzoo Corp. Ltd. should be disqualified for suing the company and its chairman despite knowing they were not involved in an underlying securities matter, Yuuzoo said in documents filed in New York federal court Tuesday.  In a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero asking for a conference to be held on the matter, Yuuzoo said  McCue Sussmane & Zapfel  should be disqualified as plaintiffs&rsquo counsel in a securities fraud matter in which Hecklerco LLC and other investors claim they were duped into giving a $245,000 loan to the founder and former president of Yuuzoo, Ron Creevey, and others with 300,000 Yuuzoo shares put up as collateral. Yuuzoo claims that an attorney for the investors, Kenneth Sussmane, met with Yuuzoo chairman Thomas Zilliacus in October 2014 and said his clients would file a suit against the company unless a settlement could be reached. Yuuzoo said that since it intends to have Sussmane testify about that meeting, the attorney and his firm should be disqualified. &ldquo The Yuuzoo defendants intend to call Mr. Sussmane as a witness to testify regarding his October 21, 2014 meeting with Mr. Zilliacus, during which Mr. Sussmane acknowledged, among other things, that the Yuuzoo defendants had no involvement in the transactions underlying this action,&rdquo the letter states. &ldquo There can be no question that Mr. Sussmane' s statements to Mr. Zilliacus bear on a significant issue of fact and would be prejudicial to plaintiffs.&rdquo Sussmane told Law360 on Tuesday that Yuuzoo&rsquo s disqualification bid was &ldquo a lightweight litigation maneuver&rdquo and a procedural tangent. &ldquo After failing to receive permission to make a motion to dismiss, Yuuzoo defendants are making this motion to gain a perceived tactical advantage and to delay the discovery,&rdquo said Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Representatives for the other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. In the underlying case alleging violations of securities laws, common law fraud and breach of contract, Hecklerco claims that Creevy, Yuuzoo and others knowingly made false statements that induced the investors to make the loan and also buy tens of thousands of shares of Yuuzoo stock. Among the numerous allegations laid out in the complaint, the investors claim that Yuuzoo grossly overstated its value at more than $380 million, &ldquo inflated&rdquo its sales figures and  never informed the investors that accounting irregularities had prompted the  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  to reject the company&rsquo s bid to trade publicly in the U.S. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, which arranged and negotiated the loan, is accused of breach of fiduciary duty by the investors. Hecklerco is represented by Kenneth Sussmane of McCue Sussmane & Zapfel PC. Yuuzoo is represented by Marc Alan Pergament of Weinberg Kaley Gross & Pergament LLP. Wells Fargo Advisors is represented by Toby S. Soli of  Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Hecklerco LLC et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC et al., case number  1:15-cv-05779, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. --Editing by Emily Kokoll.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
alishan
Senior |
10-May-2017 12:42
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Yuuzoo cho si mi lai?   Many don' t understand.   If you say " U sue" , then they understand now.   U sue, I sue, everybody sues.   Sue for losing money bcos some people induce to buy.   Some sue bcos shortists.   All of us sue until luan liao.   CEO sues ex-FC.   Other company sues U Sue.   Hor seh liao.     |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||

