There appear to be a couple of inconsistencies and possibly...

There appear to be a couple of inconsistencies and possibly inaccuracies in the article:

1) The article states CITP is a Hong Kong registered company - so how did the writer obtain CITP shareholder details from US Securities and Exchange Filings?

2) The article also states that a US company, True Product ID Inc is the owner of 70% of CITP - according to all filings I have found by TPID, the entity that holds the direct interest in CITP is TPID Technology Ltd, a Hong Kong based company which now appears to be 100% owned by Saddington if the asset sale deal by TPID closed as indicated was imminent in TPID's filing on 1 June (and based on the fact it appears the China Gas Tank project wasn't going ahead without the Saddington funding I assume the deal did close).

3) Based on the fact the Saddington deal appears to have been completed then Nexbis statements that TPID is not involved are correct (apart from the fact that TPID receive a royalty from Saddington - but that doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Nexbis component of the contract).

However the Nexbis statement in one of their announcements that CITP is formerly AQSIQ is not true - AQSIQ as far as I know still exists. CITP is a joint venture between AQSIQ and TPID Technology HK (now wholly owned by Saddington). It also does not appear to be a contract with a government agency - Nexbis seems to be a sub-contractor providing a small component ($200m value in a $2bn contract) of the overall contract, and it is CITP that appears to have the contract with the government agency. This also could be where the problem with payment timelines comes in - CITP presumably need to receive funds from the governement agency to pay Nexbis - and when funds are received they still have to go through CITP's accounts payable processes. There is also the possibility that delays in other components of the contract could lead to the Chinese agency delaying payment to CITP.

When reading through announcements it also seems that Nexbis have been generally avoided stating the contract is with the Chinese government (or a government agency) - apart from the headings on two announcements.

Overall even though I have a little more confidence than most that the money will be coming in and will continue to hold until such time as I can escape with my shirt still on, I wish I had never heard of this company as I am not happy with the level and clarity of the disclosures, and am also concerned that there seems to be a lack of real knowledge of who they are dealing with.

I also do wonder if the real reason the Vietnam contract was put out to tender might have been the Vietnamese government doing their due diligence on NBS and not liking what they saw.