So recently, Alibaba was blasted by Chinese regulatory agencies for not doing enough to prevent the sale of fraudulent or counterfeit goods in its stores.
But here's the thing. Note in the article that report was issued in July 2014. Alibaba conducted their IPO in the United States on September 19, almost two months later. They made off with $21.8 Billion in the meantime.
Do you think Jack Ma should have informed the FEC or its shareholders that it was being investigated by the Chinese government?
It's no secret that the Chinese government was happy to hold off on going public with the investigation until Mr. Ma had finished conducting the IPO. If you are shopping from Alibaba's US boutique, 11 Main, I wouldn't bet spare change they don't have the same problem.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Come on people, where's the outrage?!
Let's practice.
What do we want?!
Full disclosure by firms conducting initial public offerings when they are under investigation by their home government's regulatory agencies!!!
When do we want it?!
Now! Wait, seven months ago!!!
[ February 05, 2015, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
But that would harm the corporate interest! Undue harm! Loss of profitability! Jobs! Job creators! Class warfare on the rich!? Taxation is theft! Regulation is statist tyranny!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the genie keeps telling him to tell her the truuuuuuuuth
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's kinda hard to get all that upset. When I've looked on these sites, the products in question are usually neither fradulent or counterfeits. They're actually imitations.
For a refresher
quote: The difference is that in a case of actual counterfeiting the buyer is defrauded. They think that they are getting something that they actually are not getting. The most obvious case is with fake currency, but counterfeits can also be works of art that are sold as being produced by famous artists or a case like this one, where wines are falsely labeled to lead buyers into thinking they are getting rare and expensive vintages.
By contrast, when a buyer gets an Apple-like product or a designer-type handbag at a fraction of the standard price, they generally know that they are not getting the brand product. In these cases, the buyer is making a decision that they would rather pay less and get an imitation rather than the brand product.
In the case of unauthorized copies, the owner of the brand may have a legal case against the seller for violations of intellectual property, however the buyer has benefited from the transaction. Therefore, the buyer has no reason to cooperate with law enforcement in cracking down on the sellers. By contrast, in a case of actual counterfeiting, the buyer is the victim of fraud and has every reason to cooperate with law enforcement.