Back in April of 2009, like all the rest of the parts of the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba Group, its Alipay unit was listed this way on its Web site: “Alipay is wholly owned by Alibaba Group.”

And right now, describing the online payments platform? (my italics): “Alipay is an affiliate of Alibaba Group.”

Memo to Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: You might have noticed that critical change in Alipay’s corporate status, which happened last August, given the company you lead owns 43 percent of the Alibaba Group.

More to the point, Alipay accounted for $1.7 billion of Yahoo’s valuation.

Not surprisingly, Yahoo shares are down more than six percent in after-hours trading, likely in reaction to an unusual statement by Yahoo yesterday, in which the company said it had no idea until March 31 that Alibaba CEO Jack Ma had transferred ownership of the Alipay unit to a separate entity.

Sources said that apparently happened in a letter from Alibaba to Yahoo’s accounting department. Since then, the company said it has been trying to figure it all out.

Said Yahoo:

On March 31, 2011, Yahoo! and Softbank were notified by Alibaba Group of two transactions that occurred without the knowledge or approval of the Alibaba Group board of directors or shareholders. The first was the transfer of ownership of Alipay in August 2010. The second was the deconsolidation of Alipay effective in the first quarter of 2011.

Yahoo! disclosed this restructuring in its 10-Q after discussions with Alibaba Group and obtaining a better understanding of this complex situation.

Yahoo! continues to work closely with Alibaba and Softbank to protect economic value for all interested parties. We believe ongoing negotiations among all of the parties provide the best opportunity to achieve an outcome in the best interest of all stakeholders.

Translation: Alibaba’s Ma–who cites upcoming new rules about foreign ownership from People’s Bank of China related to operating its payment business–just snookered us and we need to play dumb until we decide whether a lawsuit will be one disaster too many for our much-beleaguered investors.

Really pissed off shareholders is more like it–BoomTown has been on the receiving end of an explosive series of calls from Yahoo’s investors today asking a variety of questions.

They include:

1. How could Alibaba have reported its results with Alipay consolidated in, even though it was a separate entity since last year? And does that spell trouble for Yahoo, since it used those numbers in its own regulatory filings in the U.S.?

2. How could Ma initiate such a transaction without approval from shareholders and its board, as Yahoo claims?

3. In any case, why weren’t Yahoo execs paying more attention to the swirling changes related to foreign ownership in China, especially since Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang is on the Alibaba board, anticipating that there could be real problems ahead?

4. Why did Yahoo execs not tell shareholders about the situation immediately or even at its April earnings call? Or perhaps before David Einhorn’s hedge fund Greenlight Capital hedge fund took a big position in Yahoo last week, specifically noting the value of the company’s Asian assets as highly attractive.

5. Does this move mean that those pretty Chinese assets Yahoo has touted are not so pretty after all, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

6. Should U.S. investors remove themselves from that Chinese market, given that these kinds of things can happen there?

7. Is Bartz’s extraordinarily tense personal relationship with Ma a big part of the problem, creating a distasteful public feud over issues better left to quiet backroom negotiations?

There will be plenty more, of course, especially around Yahoo’s disclosures to investors.

Yahoo execs will argue that it did disclose in the proper manner from a filing point of view and that it did not reveal the fissure so as not to put its negotiations with Alibaba over the situation at risk.

But–especially given the myriad of continued missteps by Bartz that have worked investors’ last nerve–that probably is not going to fly.

In fact, that irked sentiment will surely be on display at Yahoo’s upcoming investor day on May 25.

Yahoo had hoped to show off its new team of execs and talk about some legitimate momentum the company is making.

Now, it will doubtlessly all be about China and what happened there.

So, Bartz has to have a better line than a take on a Hollywood classic: “Forget it, Wall Street. It’s China.”

Maybe so, but it’s her problem to solve now.

And here’s my favorite version of that line:

According to a 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Sun (JAVA) lost $120 million, or 16 cents a share, on revenue of $2.24 billion in its first quarter. During the same period a year ago, Sun lost $1.68 billion, or $2.24 a share, on $2.99 billion in sales. Analysts had been expecting earnings of 25 cents a share on revenue of $2.31 billion.

Oracle (ORCL) CEO Larry Ellison recently said that Sun is losing about $100 million a month as it waits for European antitrust regulators to approve its acquisition by Oracle. Looks like he’s about right.

Below, excerpts from the 10-Q:

Server Products Revenue
The decrease in Server Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to the economic downturn and consolidation of our customer base, specifically in the financial services sector, as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with the proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

Storage Products Revenue
The decrease in Storage Products revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily attributable to the economic downturn as projects were scaled back, delayed or canceled, in addition to the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

North America
The decrease in revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in fiscal 2009, was primarily due to decreased sales of our enterprise Server Products, storage disk products and Services. We are still seeing the results of IT budget cuts instituted last year by our largest customers due to the economic downturn, especially in the financial services sector, in addition to the consolidation of our customer base. Across all sectors, non-critical projects are on hold. Revenue was also negatively impacted by the uncertainty associated with our proposed acquisition by Oracle and increased competition.

PREVIOUSLY:

• European Union Mulling Objection to Oracle-Sun Deal
• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Sun to Sack 3,000
• Former MySQL Boss to EC: Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

And now this: eBay’s plans to spin off Skype next year are being threatened by a legal dispute over the telephony service’s underlying technology.

In a 10-Q regulatory filing Thursday, the online auctioneer said it is developing an alternative to that technology, which it licenses from Joltid, a company run by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, but there is no guarantee of success. And if it fails in that effort and its legal dispute with Joltid drags on, eBay could be forced to shutter Skype.

“Although Skype is confident of its legal position, as with any litigation, there is the possibility of an adverse result if the matter is not resolved through negotiation,” the company said. “Skype has begun to develop alternative software to that licensed through Joltid. However, such software development may not be successful, may result in loss of functionality or customers even if successful, and will in any event be expensive. If Skype was to lose the right to use the Joltid software as the result of the litigation, and if alternative software was not available, Skype would be severely and adversely affected and the continued operation of Skype’s business as currently conducted would likely not be possible.”

That doesn’t bode well for eBay’s plans to take Skype public in the first half of 2010. Though the company insists its plans to separate the telephony service have not changed, it’s clear that eBay (EBAY) must resolve these issues before moving ahead.

Certainly, it will be difficult to gin up investor interest in an IPO for a disabled service run by a company that spent billions of dollars to purchase it and failed to secure its underlying technology.

And now this: eBay’s plans to spin off Skype next year are being threatened by a legal dispute over the telephony service’s underlying technology.

In a 10-Q regulatory filing Thursday, the online auctioneer said it is developing an alternative to that technology, which it licenses from Joltid, a company run by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, but there is no guarantee of success. And if it fails in that effort and its legal dispute with Joltid drags on, eBay could be forced to shutter Skype.

“Although Skype is confident of its legal position, as with any litigation, there is the possibility of an adverse result if the matter is not resolved through negotiation,” the company said. “Skype has begun to develop alternative software to that licensed through Joltid. However, such software development may not be successful, may result in loss of functionality or customers even if successful, and will in any event be expensive. If Skype was to lose the right to use the Joltid software as the result of the litigation, and if alternative software was not available, Skype would be severely and adversely affected and the continued operation of Skype’s business as currently conducted would likely not be possible.”

That doesn’t bode well for eBay’s plans to take Skype public in the first half of 2010. Though the company insists its plans to separate the telephony service have not changed, it’s clear that eBay (EBAY) must resolve these issues before moving ahead.

Certainly, it will be difficult to gin up investor interest in an IPO for a disabled service run by a company that spent billions of dollars to purchase it and failed to secure its underlying technology.

The post, written by two YouTube PR folk, purports to be a bit “myth-busting” about the site’s business model and financial status. But it’s really a series of assertions with little data to back up the claims, many of which we’ve heard before.

So really, the big takeaway here is that the Google folks are feeling ever more confident about YouTube’s prospects, enough to do some public chest-beating. But not enough to actually talk about those prospects in concrete terms.

For instance, YouTube says that estimates that the site can sell ads against only three percent to five percent of its video inventory, first asserted in a well-reported Wall Street Journal piece a year ago, are “old and wrong.” But the company won’t say what percentage of the site it does sell.

Likewise, the company says that analysts’ attempts to peg its bandwidth and hosting costs are off the mark, but doesn’t say what the real numbers are. Nor does it address the amount that YouTube has to pay content providers, either through upfront fees or revenue splits, for their clips.

And the most meaningful boast, I think, is one the company more-or-less made last week: “We are at a point where growth is definitely good for our bottom line, not bad.”

So when will Google finally start coming clean and offering up real data about the site’s performance? Got me. But here’s one indicator to watch for: What the company tells investors.

In Google’s 10-Q, for instance, YouTube is usually described as a black hole that has yet to generate signficant revenue; the company noted the same thing in its most recent quarterly report. A new 10-Q, for the quarter the Google just reported, should be out soon. Let’s see what Google has to say about YouTube in an audited filing.

“Chrysler’s bankruptcy and announced factory shut-down will impact second quarter numbers by reducing the number of prepaid bundled subscriptions associated with the production and shipment of new cars,” Jim Meyer, Sirius’s President of Operations and Sales, said during a conference call last week. “There will be a noticeable hit to subscribers in the second quarter, as a result of these production halts.”

A noticeable hit. What does that mean? Sirius didn’t say at the time, but a filing the company made with the SEC today gives us a clearer picture–and it’s not a pretty one. Chrysler sent quite a bit of new business Sirius’s way. From the Risk Factors item in the company’s 10-Q filing:

We do not expect to generate a significant number of new subscribers from Chrysler while its plants are closed. During the year ended December 31, 2008, Chrysler produced approximately 900,000 vehicles which included a satellite radio and a prepaid subscription to our service. These subscribers represented approximately 16% of our gross subscriber additions in 2008.”

 
Now, there’s no telling how long the Chrysler factory shutdown will last, so it’s impossible to know how much of an impact it will have on Sirius. That said, if the company’s bankruptcy proceedings drag on for any length of time, it obviously does not bode well for Sirius, especially since XM is potentially facing a similar scenario with General Motors (GM). Again, from the Sirius 10-Q:

There is also significant uncertainty surrounding General Motors’ future and potential filing for bankruptcy protection. A bankruptcy filing by General Motors could have similar effects on our subsidiary, XM.

And that would be grim news indeed. Because while Sirius has stopped counting on its auto partnerships to drive sales, it hasn’t yet established other means of driving subscriptions.