Talk:Roth Capital Partners

UNDUE Issues
The page appears to be inundated with negative, peripheral content which does not respect NPOV or UNDUE, all brought forth by the editor. The page needs fresh, legitimate sources and additional information. No need to continuously add redundant info, nor is there is a reason to remove neutral content which is legitimately sourced.156.233.122.52 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The edits were made from a strictly NPOV and consist of the most notable aspects of the coverage of the firm from reliable sources. The edits were made in accordance with WP guidelines on article structure, with the body expanding on the lede.  The major sources, including the LA Times, were added by other editors. I am going to restore the stable, reliably sourced content, including the LA Times edits, which upon further investigation is supported by an extremely similar article in no less than the WSJ - see article here.   If you would like to introduce new sources, I would suggest proposing additions to the text on this page for discussion and consensus. Cypresscross (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have located and added multiple new reliable sources, including WSJ, Barrons's, Reuters, The Street and others. All of these sources, from global financial media outlets, support and expand on the subject edits. Cypresscross (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation / request for increase in protection level
A sockpuppet investigation has been opened here and a request to increase protection level on this page here Cypresscross (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Numerous items in TOC
I wonder if there should be so many small short sections with their own titles, since most if not all of the titled entities are non-notable on their own (i.e. entities not on Wikipedia). Despite the proper sourcing, this might open the article up to claims of negative bias. I'm not touching it due to the extensive editing that was done, but will send a courtesy ping to. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim, these are interesting points you raise. Some Section headers were already removed by  here.  I'm not sure I see the connection between the sub-heads and those entities not having their own WP pages, the subheads were added to improve the structure and readability of the page.  I'm hoping other established editors comment so the article can be further improved. Cypresscross (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally, when the items are themselves so short and non-notable, they're not worthy of their own section. I'd just have them all in history without headers. Otherwise, it looks biased. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the heads up on that. I'll rework.  Any and all feedback is much appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Initially, I had a sub-head for "Criticism of underwriting practices", This is an accurate sub-heading. It might make sense to add back this sub-heading, and combine the rest of the body under that one sub-heading, and get rid of the other sub-headings as you suggest above.  This would also tie this section into the lede.  When I was researching, the common theme just about every source led to was a criticism of their underwriting practices (which is why I added that to the lede). Let me know what you think. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think criticism of underwriting would work better as a title. The history though would be kind of sparse.  I looked for sourcing to flush the history out and maybe balance things out, and found a few early items, mainly on the name change. [] [] []. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the changes based on our consensus. I agree the history section is sparse, and probably should at least have the current name change added.  I already found some of the sources you link to above and will dig i nto the others. Any and all feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a 2002 Orange County Business Journal article about them pivoting to smaller deals, but it's paywalled. [] I pdfed it and can send it to you if you turn on your email. The email options are under your preferences at the top. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV
I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital to edit on the firm's behalf.

As has been documented at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, this article has been edited extensively by User:Cypresscross, who I and another editor believe has an undisclosed COI against the article's subject. As a result, the article has become a collection of negative highlights about the company, and I would like to suggest a number of edits to restore NPOV. I am using the "request edit" route instead of simply initiating a discussion on the Talk page in order to bring additional, unbiased editors to assist with this project.

1) The lead section places undue weight on the controversies surrounding the firm.

Delete: The company has been widely criticized for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted. The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm, and for hosting what has been described as "bacchanals" in which emerging companies woo investors amid topless models and extravagant music acts such as Kid Rock, Pitbull and Snoop Dogg.

Replace with: It has raised approximately $50 billion for small-cap and private companies.

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies.

2) Add sourced content to History section.

Add:Cruttenden left the firm to start his own venture capital company in 1998. Roth became the firm’s new chairman, after having become its president in 1993 and its chief executive in 1997. The firm was renamed Roth Capital Partners in 2000.

Since the 1990s, Roth has been involved in the IPOs of several notable companies, including U-Haul parent company AMERCO in 1994 and Imax Corp. in 2009.

3) For due weight and NPOV, condense "Criticism of underwriting practices" and "Feature in The China Hustle documentary" sections into a Controversies subsection within History. Also to achieve due weight and NPOV, trim those paragraphs themselves and add one sentence presenting a defense of Roth.

Delete: ==Criticism of underwriting practices== In 1998 the Los Angeles Times reported that Roth had been criticized for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the initial public offering of Aviation Distributors Inc., which later faced multiple shareholder lawsuits alleging the company had manipulated it's revenues in order to boost the company's stock price. The company initially went public at $5 per share and later traded as high at $12.88 per share before falling to just 97 cents per share following the announcement of the lawsuits.

In August 2010, Barron's reported that Roth's promotional materials claimed that it had "pioneered" the practice of PIPE financing and had helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars and that led to multiple investigations.

Barron's also cited questions raised by investors about Orient Paper, China Natural Gas and China Green Agriculture, firms underwritten by Roth, and which were later investigated for fraud by the SEC.

One of Roth's clients, China Biotics, was delisted from the NASDAQ in June 2011, just months after Roth helped the company raise more than $79 million from U.S. investors. China Biotics’ auditor, BDO, subsequently resigned after making accusations that the company had falsified documents, overstated the company's assets and that irregularities it discovered "likely constitute illegal acts." In October 2011 the SEC suspended trading in China-Biotics.

==Feature in The China Hustle documentary== The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm.

Replace with: ===Controversies=== Some investors have criticized Roth for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the 1997 initial public offering of a company that was later sued for fraud.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars, and that led to multiple investigations. The firm’s underwriting practices in China were highlighted in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle.

The film was criticized for inaccuracies about Roth’s involvement in these business transactions; according to an Orange County Business Journal article, the transactions undertaken by Roth in China are more accurately described as “follow-on investments,” rather than “reverse mergers,” since Roth raised capital for the Chinese companies after they had already gone public in the U.S.

4) The Bacchanals section is POV.

Delete: ==Bacchanals== The firm's promotional activies have been compared to the lavish parties of Drexel Burnham Lambert’s of the mid-1980s, which were nicknamed “The Predator’s Ball”. In February 2007, The New York Post reported that Roth took several hundred of its clients to a Cancun-meets-Wall Street-themed lollapalooza. The primary feature of Roth’s event was the presence of “several dozen” topless Asian models, with the ticker symbols of the companies Roth underwrote body-painted on.

In August, 2011, Reuters reported that the firm, just hours after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a warning about Chinese reverse mergers, for which Roth was a leading underwriter, threw a “Miami Glam” party in which guests were surrounded by rhinestone-encrusted sculptures of leopards while bikini-clad hostesses served cotton candy as rapper Pitbull put on a concert.

Replace with: ==Roth Conference== Since 1988, the firm has hosted an annual conference in Orange County, California, that attracts institutional and private equity investors and focuses on small-cap and mid-cap stocks. The conference, which has included topics such as AI, blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and cannabis, is known for its extravagant nighttime entertainment, featuring musical acts including Snoop Dogg and the Black Eyed Peas. The conference has also included sports activities which raise funds for the Challenged Athletes Foundation.

The conference has been called "lavish" and described as a “bacchanal,” with its scantily clad dancers and hostesses and “free-flowing booze.” 76.76.37.45 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's obvious this isn't your first edit here, so please login/disclose your username. Otherwise, we may presume that you are blocked/banned. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. As discussed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, I don't edit using an account/s and never have. I have not been blocked. I disclosed my previous edits in that thread, and User:Jytdog listed them as a result. In that discussion, I was told that the only acceptable way to work on this issue was through the Talk page and requesting edits, which is why I put this up. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do/any other questions I should answer before changing the status as User:Spintendo suggested. Thank you72.11.16.105 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 14-AUG-2018

 * 1) On 31-JUL-2018 the IP editor who declared their association with Roth was told they would need to disclose each and every time they made a request (i.e., continuous disclosure). The IP editor 52.129.123.116 affirmed by replying "I will disclose my position in the edit summary (?) of each post."
 * 2) A request was received from IP 76.76.37.45 which contained the correct COI disclosure.
 * 3) A response was made to IP 76.76.37.45 by the editor, asking for the IP editor to disclose additional information. No response was received from that IP.
 * 4) A third IP, 72.11.16.105, made a post referring to the article and to previous discussions. However, this IP did not contain the disclosure as requested by Jytdog and affirmed by IP 52.129.123.116.
 * 5) Because the IP editor 72.11.16.105 did not abide by continuous disclosure, it cannot be assumed with all certainty from here whether the IP editor who replied to Smartse (72.11.16.105) and the IP editor who made the edit request (76.76.37.45) are the same individual.
 * 6) No reply has been received from IP editor 76.76.37.45 (the originator of the request) and the only follow-up has come from an IP editor who did not disclose (72.11.16.105) and thus cannot be assumed to be the same person as the requester. For these reasons the edit request is declined.


 * On a constructive note, may I suggest to the IP editor that to save everyone (especially yourself) a lot of irritation, you get an account, and make the COI declaration part of your signature? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that so clearly, it hadn't occurred to me that my continued responses in a COI thread may be misinterpreted as non-COI or as someone else. My mistake. As per your suggestion, I've created this account to avoid any further confusion. I openly declare my COI here, and am the same person as the anonymous editor who edited and responded to the comments in this thread, as well as the ones used on and mentioned at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. You mentioned adding a disclosure in my signature- how would I do that? Happy to do so as well. Once this is set up, can you please advise as to what my next steps should be to re-open the edit request or to submit a new one properly and according to protocol. Thank you.Quknpnfl (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV (take 2)
I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital to edit on the firm's behalf. I also disclose that I have edited in the past on behalf of Roth (never from a different registered account) before registering this account, and that I am the author of the previous edit request and all the subsequent unregistered posts on that thread.

I will reiterate what I wrote in the previous request: As has been documented at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 133, this article has been edited extensively by User:Cypresscross, who I and another editor believe has an undisclosed COI against the article's subject. (It is increasingly difficult for me to understand how no other editors seem to recognize Cypresscross's obvious bad-faith editing.) As a result, the article has become a collection of negative highlights about the company.

This article, in its current state, fits the definition of an attack page to a T. While it is mostly well sourced, it "consists primarily of attacks against the subject," and I encourage those dealing with this edit request to follow the recommendations at WP:ATTACK accordingly. Since I know this is a tall order coming from someone editing on behalf of the article's subject, I am also providing a draft that I believe respects Wikipedia content policies.

In the places where I call for deleting content that reflects negatively on Roth (which was not generated through consensus, but almost entirely from one editor who clearly has an ax to grind against Roth), I do not call for removing points of criticism or controversy entirely (except in cases where the sources are unreliable), but instead to present that content in an appropriate proportion of the article. To quote WP:BALASP: "Discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

1) The lead section places undue weight on the controversies surrounding the firm.

Delete:

The company has been widely criticized and accused of fraud for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted. The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm, and for hosting what has been described as "bacchanals" in which emerging companies woo investors amid topless models and extravagant music acts such as Kid Rock, Pitbull and Snoop Dogg.

Replace with:

It has raised approximately $50 billion for small-cap and private companies.

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies.

2) Add sourced content to History section.

Add:

Cruttenden left the firm to start his own venture capital company in 1998. Roth became the firm’s new chairman, after having become its president in 1993 and its chief executive in 1997.

Since the 1990s, Roth has been involved in the IPOs of several notable companies, including U-Haul parent company AMERCO in 1994 and Imax Corp. in 2009.

3) For due weight and NPOV, condense "Criticism of underwriting practices" and "Feature in The China Hustle documentary" sections into a Controversies subsection within History. Also to achieve due weight and NPOV, trim those paragraphs themselves and add one sentence presenting a defense of Roth.

Delete:

Criticism of underwriting practices and allegations of fraud

In 1998 the Los Angeles Times reported that Roth had been criticized for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the initial public offering of Aviation Distributors Inc., which later faced multiple shareholder lawsuits alleging the company had manipulated it's revenues in order to boost the company's stock price. The company initially went public at $5 per share and later traded as high at $12.88 per share before falling to just 97 cents per share following the announcement of the lawsuits.

PIPE Financing

In August 2006, The New York Times reported that brokerage firms that underwrite "private investment in public equity" (PIPE's) were being examined by regulators concerned that the firms were tipping off clients to deals and that Roth had ranked as one of the largest firms offering PIPE's, with 20 deals in the first half of 2006 alone.

In August 2010, Barron's reported that Roth's promotional materials claimed that it had "pioneered" the practice of PIPE financing and had helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies.

Barron's has also cited questions raised by investors about Orient Paper, China Natural Gas and China Green Agriculture, firms underwritten by Roth, and which were later investigated for fraud by the SEC.

Reverse mergers

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars and that led to multiple investigations.

In October 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that one of Roth's clients, China Biotics, was delisted from the NASDAQ in June 2011, just months after Roth helped the company raise more than $79 million from U.S. investors. China Biotics’ auditor, BDO, subsequently resigned after making accusations that the company had falsified documents, overstated the company's assets and that irregularities it discovered "likely constitute illegal acts." In October 2011 the SEC suspended trading in China-Biotics.

In August 2012, The Seattle Times reported that HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries stock had sank from a high of $15 per share to just 10 cents, after the company’s auditing firm resigned alleging the company’s management had obstructed inquiries into its finances. The company's shares were later delisted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also opened a formal investigation into the company. The company's investors later filed a federal class-action lawsuit, citing “substantial evidence of fraud,” and naming Roth, who underwrote stock offerings that raised about $23 million for the company.

In September 2013 The Washington Post reported that in January 2010 Roth had arranged an IPO through a reverse merger for China Electric Motor Company (NASDAQ: CELM). After the IPO, Roth issued five “buy” ratings on the stock. About a year later, China Electric delayed its 10-K filing with the SEC due to "financial-statement discrepancies," trading in the stock was halted and the company's auditor, MaloneBailey, resigned. In October 2011, the Nasdaq delisted CELM and U.S. investors lost millions.

Digital Domain IPO and Bankruptcy

In 2012, The Palm Beach Post reported that three federal class-action lawsuits had been filed that alleged Digital Domain had lied about it's financial condition at the time of its initial public offering, and named Roth, who as the company's lead underwriter was responsible for ensuring the truthfulness and accuracy of the statements, as a defendent. Digital Domain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy less than 10 months after its initial public offering, wiping out $400 million in market value and rendering the stock essentially worthless.

In 2014 the state of Florida filed a lawsuit, naming Roth as a defendant, alleging conspiracy to commit fraud, that Roth had concealed a liquidity crisis at Digital Domain, which it called a "de facto Ponzi scheme" and had duped Florida governor Charlie Crist as well as other Florida politicians out of more than $80 million in grants as it descended into bankruptcy.

Wall Crossing

In April 2018 financial media outlet ValueWalk reported that Roth acted as sole underwriter for a Blockchain offering by Inpixon (Nasdaq: INPX), whereby select investors were given access to material non-public information in advance of the public that allowed them to profit at their expense. The article described the Wall crossing transaction as "spectacularly sketchy," and questioned its legality.

Feature in The China Hustle documentary

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm.

Replace with:

Controversies

Some investors have criticized Roth for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the IPOs of multiple companies that were later sued for fraud.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars, and that led to multiple investigations. The firm’s underwriting practices in China were highlighted in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle.

The film was criticized for inaccuracies about Roth’s involvement in these business transactions; according to an Orange County Business Journal article, the transactions undertaken by Roth in China are more accurately described as “follow-on investments,” rather than “reverse mergers,” since Roth raised capital for the Chinese companies after they had already gone public in the U.S.

4) The Bacchanals section is POV.

Delete:

Bacchanals

The firm's promotional activies have been compared to the lavish parties of Drexel Burnham Lambert’s of the mid-1980s, which were nicknamed “The Predator’s Ball”. In February 2007, The New York Post reported that Roth took several hundred of its clients to a Cancun-meets-Wall Street-themed lollapalooza. The primary feature of Roth’s event was the presence of “several dozen” topless Asian models, with the ticker symbols of the companies Roth underwrote body-painted on.

In August, 2011, Reuters reported that the firm, just hours after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a warning about Chinese reverse mergers, for which Roth was a leading underwriter, threw a “Miami Glam” party in which guests were surrounded by rhinestone-encrusted sculptures of leopards while bikini-clad hostesses served cotton candy as rapper Pitbull put on a concert.

Replace with:

Roth Conference

Since 1988, the firm has hosted an annual conference in Orange County, California, that attracts institutional and private equity investors and focuses on small-cap and mid-cap stocks. The conference, which has included topics such as AI, blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and cannabis, is known for its extravagant nighttime entertainment, featuring musical acts including Snoop Dogg and the Black Eyed Peas. The conference has also included sports activities which raise funds for the Challenged Athletes Foundation.

The conference has been called "lavish" and described as a “bacchanal,” with its scantily clad dancers and hostesses and “free-flowing booze.”

Thank you, Quknpnfl (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 03-SEP-2018
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes for information on each request.  spintendo   01:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Expanded edit summary of changes made 04-SEP-2018
The following changes were made to the text:
 * 1) The claims made by ValueWalk in one instance and Reuters in another were removed, as the information in both cases is editorial content.
 * 2) The information concerning the documentary was omitted in the lead and its references were moved to the section where the information in mentioned in the prose.
 * 3) The following text was removed from the article for being insufficiently paraphrased from the source material:

 spintendo   05:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV (#3)
I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital to edit on the firm's behalf. I also disclose that I have edited in the past on behalf of Roth before registering this account, and that I am the author of the first edit request on this page and all the subsequent unregistered posts on that thread.

I do not call for removing points of criticism or controversy entirely (except in cases where the sources are unreliable), but instead for presenting that content in an appropriate proportion of the article. To quote WP:BALASP: "Discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

1) Delete the weasel word "widely" from the phrase "widely criticized."

Delete:

The company has been widely criticized and accused of fraud for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted.

Replace with:

The company has been criticized and accused of fraud for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted.

2) Add sourced content to History section.

Add:

Cruttenden left the firm to start his own venture capital company in 1998. Roth became the firm’s new chairman, after having become its president in 1993 and its chief executive in 1997. In February 2000 the firm changed its name to Roth Capital Partners, Inc.

Since the 1990s, Roth has been involved in the IPOs of several notable companies, including U-Haul parent company AMERCO in 1994 and Imax Corp. in 2009. It has raised approximately $50 billion for small-cap and private companies.

3) Merge "Criticism of underwriting practices and allegations of fraud" section and "Feature in The China Hustle documentary" section into one "Controversies" section.

4) Per NPOV/UNDUE/BALASP, condense critical content into a smaller proportion of the article. As I wrote above, I have no desire to whitewash relevant critiques of Roth. All I ask is to generate a proper balance of aspects of the topic. This article does not need a separate paragraph for each of the thousands of (well-sourced) deals Roth has completed over the years, a vast majority of which were with companies that were never anything but completely above board.

In addition, two of Cypresscross's more recent "attack" edits were incredible misrepresentations of the source articles:
 * In 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that just before U-Haul parent company Amerco filed for bankruptcy, Roth issued a "buy" rating on the stock.
 * Cypresscross inserted this line in the "Criticism" section, despite the fact that the WSJ source does not frame Roth's "buy" rating as a criticism of Roth - that was Cypresscross's own implicit assertion.
 * In September 2013 The Washington Post reported that Roth had arranged a reverse merger for China Electric Motor Company (NASDAQ: CELM). After the IPO, Roth issued five “buy” ratings on the stock. About a year later, the company delayed its regulatory filings, trading in the stock was halted and the company's auditor resigned. In October 2011, the Nasdaq delisted CELM and U.S. investors lost millions.
 * This is not what the source says. Roth did not arrange a reverse merger for China Electric; that was WestPark Capital, a different firm. The Washington Post source states that Roth "arranged a public offering" of China Electric, not a reverse merger.

Delete (see #5 for condensed "Controversies" text):

In 1998 the Los Angeles Times reported that Roth had been criticized for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the initial public offering of Aviation Distributors Inc., which later faced multiple shareholder lawsuits alleging the company had manipulated its revenues in order to boost the company's stock price. The company initially went public at $5 per share and later traded as high at $12.88 per share before falling to just 97 cents per share following the announcement of the lawsuits.

In 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that just before U-Hau l parent company Amerco filed for bankruptcy, Roth issued a "buy" rating on the stock.

PIPE Financing

In August 2006, The New York Times reported that brokerage firms that underwrite "private investment in public equity" (PIPE's) were being examined by regulators concerned that the firms were tipping off clients to deals and that Roth had ranked as one of the largest firms offering PIPE's, with 20 deals in the first half of 2006 alone.

In August 2010, Barron's reported that Roth's promotional materials claimed that it had "pioneered" the practice of PIPE financing and had helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies.

Barron's has also cited questions raised by investors about Orient Paper, China Natural Gas and China Green Agriculture, firms underwritten by Roth, and which were later investigated for fraud by the SEC.

Reverse mergers

in December 2010, The Street reported that prominent US investor Richard Heckman less than a year after acquiring China Water and Drinks Corporation for more than half a billion dollars, stated that he had been "swindled," that China Water was "mostly a fiction," that it's founder "Xu Hong Bin" was an alias used to conceal a criminal record and that Byron Roth had arranged the transaction between Heckman and Xu Hong Bin.

In October 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that one of Roth's clients, China Biotics, was delisted from the NASDAQ in June 2011, just months after Roth helped the company raise more than $79 million from U.S. investors. China Biotics’ auditor, BDO, subsequently resigned after making accusations that the company had falsified documents, overstated the company's assets and that irregularities it discovered "likely constitute illegal acts." In October 2011 the SEC suspended trading in China-Biotics.

In August 2012, The Seattle Times reported that HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries stock had sank from a high of $15 per share to just 10 cents, after the company’s auditing firm resigned alleging the company’s management had obstructed inquiries into its finances. The company's shares were later delisted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also opened a formal investigation into the company. The company's investors later filed a federal class-action lawsuit, citing “substantial evidence of fraud,” and naming Roth, who underwrote stock offerings that raised about $23 million for the company.

In September 2013 The Washington Post reported that Roth had arranged a reverse merger for China Electric Motor Company (NASDAQ: CELM). After the IPO, Roth issued five “buy” ratings on the stock. About a year later, the company delayed its regulatory filings, trading in the stock was halted and the company's auditor resigned. In October 2011, the Nasdaq delisted CELM and U.S. investors lost millions.

Digital Domain IPO and Bankruptcy

In 2012, The Palm Beach Post reported that three federal class-action lawsuits had been filed that alleged Digital Domain had lied about its financial condition at the time of its initial public offering, and named Roth, who as the company's lead underwriter was responsible for ensuring the truthfulness and accuracy of the statements, as a defendant. Digital Domain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy less than 10 months after its initial public offering, wiping out $400 million in market value and rendering the stock essentially worthless.

In 2014 the state of Florida filed a lawsuit, naming Roth as a defendant, alleging conspiracy to commit fraud, that Roth had concealed a liquidity crisis at Digital Domain, which it called a "de facto Ponzi scheme" and had duped Florida governor Charlie Crist as well as other Florida politicians out of more than $80 million in grants as it descended into bankruptcy.

Feature in The China Hustle documentary

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm.

5) Add condensed "Controversies" section:

Some investors have criticized Roth for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the IPOs of multiple companies that were later sued for fraud. These included the IPO of Aviation Distributors Inc. in 1997 and the IPO of Digital Domain in 2011.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars, and that led to multiple investigations. The firm’s underwriting practices in China were highlighted in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle.

6) Add one sentence presenting a defense of Roth, immediately following the sentence on "The China Hustle."

Add:

The film was criticized for inaccuracies about Roth’s involvement in these business transactions; according to an Orange County Business Journal article, the transactions undertaken by Roth in China are more accurately described as “follow-on investments,” rather than “reverse mergers,” since Roth raised capital for the Chinese companies after they had already gone public in the U.S.

7) Add sourced content on the Roth Conferences to the start of the "Promotional activities" section.

Add:

Since 1988, the firm has hosted an annual conference in Orange County, California, that attracts institutional and private equity investors and focuses on small-cap and mid-cap stocks. The conference has included topics such as AI, blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and cannabis. The conference has also included sports activities which raise funds for the Challenged Athletes Foundation.

8) Remove content from dubious New York Post source. Based on what I've read on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here, the NY Post should not be used as a reliable source to support content that is controversial. This should hold especially true in this case, where there are literally no other sources on the internet (that I've found) to corroborate the information in the article about the Roth Conference.

Delete:

The firm's promotional activies have been compared to the lavish parties of Drexel Burnham Lambert’s of the mid-1980s, which were nicknamed “The Predator’s Ball”.

In February 2007, The New York Post reported that Roth hosted clients at an event where the primary feature was “several dozen” topless Asian models with the ticker symbols of the companies Roth underwrote body-painted on.

9) Remove unrelated content about Chinese reverse mergers from section on Roth Conference. The connection to China made sense in the context of the Reuters article, but not in the context of a description of the Roth Conference per se.

Delete (see #10 for replacement text):

In August, 2011, Reuters reported that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a warning regarding Chinese reverse mergers. According to the article, just hours after the warning, Roth, which was a leading underwriter of Chinese reverse mergers, threw a party in which guests were surrounded by rhinestone-encrusted sculptures while hostesses wearing bikinis served cotton candy and rapper Pitbull put on a concert.

10) Add content about Roth Conference:

The conference is known for its extravagant nighttime entertainment, featuring musical acts including Snoop Dogg and the Black Eyed Peas. At the 2011 Roth Conference, according to a Reuters report, party guests were surrounded by rhinestone-encrusted sculptures while hostesses wearing bikinis served cotton candy and rapper Pitbull put on a concert.

Quknpnfl (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the word "widely" from the beginning as a WP:WTW and while I have a problem with adding what is essentially NYPost gossip to the article, I think what the article would ultimately benefit from is the input of other editors. The COI editor is urged to take their concerns to WP:COIN once again to achieve balance for the article from a more thorough consensus.   spintendo   20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've completely rewritten the article to remove the content added by Cypresscross that was ridiculously biased against the company - see my recent edit summaries (especially this one). Cypresscross clearly has a very strong conflict of interest here (as he does regarding Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which I've also cleaned up). I strongly recommend his input to this and all related topics are restricted to the talk pages. —S MALL  JIM   18:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)