The following is a summary of the investors’ meeting organized by Weizhen Tang’s Oversea Chinese Fund in Toronto on October 25, 2009. The summary aims to keep all investors informed of the latest status and progress of Weizhen Tang’s case and to assist them in making choices.
Attached please find a copy of the Consent Form and Weizhen Tang’s Notice of Motion for your review. If you would like to authorize Mr. Tang to trade on your behalf, please make sure you send the signed Consent Form, either by fax or email attachment, to the office of Mr. Loftus Cuddy, representing lawyer of Weizhen Tang. Fax number and email address are provided as follows:
Minutes of the OCF Investors’ Meeting of October 25, 2009
At about 10:00AM on Sunday, October 25, 2009, Weizhen Tang’s Oversea Chinese Fund held an investors’ meeting at a restaurant in Markham, Ontario. Mr. Tang and about 50 of his investors attended the meeting. Also present were Mr. Loftus Cuddy, Tang’s lawyer, and Mr. Allan Gould, Tang’s PR consultant. Mr. Michael Wu was the English-Mandarin interpreter for the meeting.
Weizhen Tang chaired the meeting. He first made an apologetic opening to the investors and reassured them that he would do everything he could to recoup their losses and pay back their investment. He said: My primary concern has always been to pay back investors for the losses incurred with me. However, I have to make it clear to everyone that the only way I can achieve this goal is through trading in the market and earning profits. If I could be permitted to resume trading, I will have no problem to realize it at all.
Tang said: my re-rise will only happen on the foundation of the following three conditions:
First of all, I must be proved not guilty. I will be finished if the court conviction says I am guilty – there is no doubt about that! Please trust that I didn’t do stupid things such as taking clients’ money into my own possession. Second, I have to prove my ability to maintain consistent 1% weekly profit from the market. Third, I have to return all the investment that the investors had paid to me previously.
Due to certain special circumstances around my case, more importantly, because I did not put investors’ money in my own pocket, and that many investors have expressed clear wish that I could recoup their losses incurred in the market through trading, the OSC has agreed to hold a hearing about it before they make a decision. So there is a chance that the OSC will permit me to trade again on behalf of those investors who have authorized me to do so.
Following Tang’s opening remarks, Mr. Loftus Cuddy came on stage to give his introduction to the situation. The following is what Mr. Cuddy said about the case:
“All legal proceedings regarding the case are going on as scheduled. Court trail will start in April of 2010. The court has collected more than 15,000 documents about this case. After reading most of these documents, I have not found anything that indicates a clear direction in terms of the trial outcome. Therefore I have come to help Mr. Tang seek limited permission of the OSC to do trading.”
According to the lawyer, the existing cease-trade order functions as a penalty before trial. In the light of the current open social background of the case, if Tang could be permitted to trade on behalf of existing investors for the purpose recouping their losses, with conditions imposed and under strict supervision, it will not be in breach of any public interest. With regard to this request, the Ontario Securities Commission will hold a hearing on November 13, 2009. So far, 22 of the investors have signed the Consent Form to authorize Tang to trade for them.
Mr. Cuddy raised a couple of questions to those who have signed the authorization. These questions and answers are recorded as follows:
Question from Cuddy to investors: Weizhen Tang has lost your invested money before. Why do you still want him to trade on your behalf?
Answer from Investor A: The loss is the surface of things. In fact, many different reasons account for the loss. Mr. Tang has proved his abilities to trade and earn profits. We believe as long as we implement effective supervision, we will have control of the risks. Our sole chance of recovering the losses is to have him trade for us again.
Question from Investor B to Cuddy: Will we lose anything after signing the authorization?
Answer from Cuddy: No, you won’t. It is only your consent to let Mr. Tang trade on behalf of you. You will not lose any of your rights because of this.
Remark of Investor C: Now that the incident (Tang’s loss) has happened, it won’t help us at all even if we shoot him a hundred times. What’s really important is that we are united. Tang getting the permission to do trading again is our only hope.
Question of Investor D: I have doubts about Tang’s sincerity for returning money to the investors.
Answer from Cuddy: Tang is definitely enthusiastic and sincere. You don’t meet many people like him in this similar situation, who is so determined to make up for the investors’ losses.
Question of Investor D to Cuddy: How is Tang going to trade without money? What is he going to trade with? When they (client representatives) did the auditing earlier this year, they found a discrepancy of eight million dollars. If Tang could turn in this fund, there would be no problem, but without it, what’s the point of seeking permission for him to trade now?
Answer from Tang: There is never such a thing as eight million dollar discrepancy. Pure nonsense! You obviously have a vicious intention to raise it again today. Under the ongoing investigations of the OSC and the court, everything is transparent and exposed.
Remark of Investor C: To sign or not to sign, it’s up to you. Please don’t make trouble here, I beg you guys!
Remark of Investor E: Tang was once allowed to continue trading under the supervision of the clients committee. However, he enrolled new clients without telling us. So we have lost our trust in him.
If Tang is really sincere about paying back the investors, he could move out of the jurisdiction of the OSC to do trading for us, even after a court conviction. I don’t mind if I have to wait a long time. However, I just won’t sign anything in his favor before the conviction of the court. I am speaking only for myself.
Answer from Cuddy: From the current court documents, there is no evidence yet that would indicate Tang’s guiltiness.
Remark of Investor E: The last client that Tang enrolled gave him $150,000. However, he lost it again to other investors.
Answer from Tang to Investor E: Your allegation is totally groundless. I never lost that money. In fact, I made profits with it. As many people know, I made about $80,000 within three days from the market, using this money and the $200,000 equity loan from my mortgage. This fund was eventually frozen by the OSC, but I never lost it. Please be responsible for what you say.
Questions from Investor E to Cuddy: Mr. Tang has been operating his investment business for many years in Toronto. He has openly organized numerous social events which were attended by federal and provincial officials and MPs, etc. Now we are told that Tang and his company did not have proper registration with the OSC. My question is, shouldn’t the OSC take any responsibility, and isn’t that a serious negligence of the OSC of its duties? The cease trade order currently in place may be a protection for new investors, but what about us? If the OSC forbids Tang to trade for us, are they going to compensate us for the losses?
I think Tang has the market competence to trade well and make profits. If he is allowed to do so, we may be able to recoup the losses under effective monitoring and supervision. As this is fully in line with the protection of public interests, I entreat the OSC to give serious consideration.
Question from Investor G to Cuddy: As attorney of the accused, isn’t it a violation of the law for you to be in such close contact with the accusers?
Answer from Cuddy to Investor G: My answer to your question is No. There is nothing wrong at all. What I am doing is completely legal. You are not the accusers. The accusers are the Crown and the OSC.
Remarks of Investor H: Those who refuse to sign the authorization might as well declare that they give up their investment. They should refuse to take any money that Mr. Tang pays them back in the future. Don’t just think of getting your money back and not signing the authorization.
Remarks of Investor A: The different attitudes of the investors toward the handling of Tang’s case can be summarized into several categories, which translate into several investor groups.
Group A prefers to turn the case to police. This is a low cost solution, and whatever outcome that arises will affect and involve all investors.
Group B prefers to file a complaint to the Securities Commission, who will place a cease trader order and launch an investigation against Tang. Similarly, this is a low cost solution, the outcome of which will affect everyone.
Group C wants to initiate a civil action at court against Tang to recover losses. However, this costly solution entails expensive lawyer’s fees and court charges, and its outcome, which is equally unpredictable, will benefit only those who participate
Group D still has trust in Tang’s ability to trade in the market and make profits. So they want to see him continue trading.
Group F don’t have an idea yet. They want to wait and see more before they make a decision.
In my opinion, Group A and B’s attitudes have already been put into action with outcomes pending. However, all we can do now is wait passively for the result to come up. As legal proceedings may take three or five years or even longer time, why don’t we do something now that may contribute to a better outcome for all of us? If the permission of the OSC to let Mr. Tang trade for us now is not in conflict with any other solution or investigation, why can’t we give ourselves another chance? Down the road there may be more opportunities for us. So I am willing to invest a little more money and make Mr. Tang generate profits for me in the market. I am not bothering anyone else, so why should there be objections from others? You just need to watch because I will be the one to undertake losses if they do occur. If I am successful, then you get a solution as well. So there is really nothing for others to lose at all.
Any one who intends to upset the plan at the OSC hearing of November 13 would be a truly morally depraved person. No one should do it, and investors ought to have respect for each other.
Remark of Investor C: I have faith in Mr. Tang’s market competence. He is a person with business savvy and knows enough about cost-effectiveness. He has unique ideas and ways of thinking. Those who don’t know him well may think he is crazy sometimes, but he is a very smart businessperson who does things differently from others. A lot of times, he is able to accomplish major desired effects with only small expenses. Good examples that showcase his abilities are his role in sponsoring such influential social events as the Canadian Chinese Lunar New Year show and the 4.13 Chinese Rally in Ottawa. Based on my knowledge of Mr. Tang, I don’t think he will abuse investors’ money. We must be united and rely on our own efforts to get Mr. Tang a chance to trade for us again so that he can recoup our losses early. No one knows how long the legal proceedings will take. In particular, we can hardly anticipate a satisfying result on this case.
At the end of the meeting, 23 more investors signed the Consent Form in addition to the 22, who signed it prior to the meeting. In total, 45 investors have signed their authorization for Mr. Tang to trade on their behalf.
Some other investors took the unsigned Consent Form home, saying they would make a decision after checking with their families.