Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
the SEC staff follows a long-standing policy against providing any information to its targets.
Ummmmm......
It's the SEC's own words....
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612-o.pdf
Beyond that do you think the SEC wouldn't care if Mike bonused himself and others a few million bucks in effect raiding the company?
Believe it or not the SEC would not care one bit. However, If they PR'd a set of financials that misrepresented the bonuses, then the SEC would care...but as a grey sheet or even pink sheet they don't have to say or issue anything...so frankly it could happen and you would never know...and not a single law would be broken.
In this case, silence can truly be golden.
I think holding that money tight to prove to the SEC they have successfully completed a project as advertised would be the prudent thing to do
The SEC could not give a rip about the operations of Laidlaw Energy. They only care about the publicly traded security LLEG. Whether a project is completed or not is also irrelevant. Similarly, compensation or dividend amounts are irrelevant as long as they are properly accounted for and reported as required. Yes, if LLEG misrepresents something, then they are in dodo. But what does "as advertised" mean? Have they made a commitment or said something promissory that they may not be able to follow through on?
The SEC does not care what a company does business wise, what business they are in our how they pay themselves, as long as they meet the security laws as they pertain to the public security LLEG.
Hmmm...a zero volume day. I guess that means nobody wanted to sell...I mean...I guess nobody wanted to buy...errr...I mean...nobody could find themselves in the dark ?!?
Your 4 is a reasonable number
Actually we know the number to be 5 now. Bravakis' son is on the payroll.
Also...I completely left out the fact that the 2.6 Billion shares ONLY REPRESENT about 35-40% of the equity. So that using BBFL's numbers and assumptions, it actually is 0.006 at best...assuming no expenses, it actually becoming recurring revenue and LLEG getting off the greys.
So even if it is just another $4m, that is all profit with very few appreciable expences. So $4M divided by 2.4B shares is a profit of .0016/share. Factor in a P/E ratio of HALF the going average for this industry, putting that at 10 and you get a share price that is valued @.016/share.
Interesting analysis...
However, you generally can't apply that type of analysis to a non-recurring item, which the payment from Cate would represent. If you do want to think of it as recurring income, then you have to look at this as an entirely different business model...in which case the big $$ never come.
But it is all moot anyways until LLEG gets off the greys.
You might want to use more precise terminology. An "SEC Attorney" is an attorney that works for the SEC. I think you are referring to a Securities attorney.
Of course it is...for now. No point in getting himself arrested, fined, or otherwise to silence a few naysayers, doubters, or even the just curious.
Are you implying that the ONLY thing he might/could say now would result in one of those outcomes?
A factual and material statement is not at risk of any of those actions.
How much time has to go by before you feel "we have waited long enough?"
As an optimist I am looking at what he said "we are almost there."
Might be nice if he would elaborate...although he can't obviously. What is the "there"? Why say that? Berlin financial close? Final payment? Marcum audit? Up listing? SEC resolution?
What?
And is not the statement "we are almost there" promissory?
So if in fact that was Ed, and the quote is true...well...I will let you interpret that in whatever way suits you best...as Ed seems to encourage.
LLEG DOES NOT need to make ANY promissory statment in a status update. Its that simple. Only way that I can interpret it is that NOTHING good worth reporting HAS happened since June 7.
LLEG cannot issue progress reports, etc. because the company can be viewed as making statements that are promissory in nature and that is not allowed.
Just Wow....
"promissory"? What the heck is promissory about a "status report"???
Is he implying that the ONLY thing they can talk about is something in the future that is uncertain...as there is NOTHING today that is worth discussing?
Disappointing.
If you have any knowledge of SEC compliance you would know that an AUDITED financial report is manditory for SEC compliance
I have plenty of knowledge of SEC compliance and the range of services Marcum could provide. However, as a grey sheet/former pink sheet, LLEG are not required to do anything.
The only thing we know for certain (which is all that many here seem to concern themselves with) is that LLEG announced on their website that they have retained Marcum. There is not even a PR about it.
So again, what is the scope of their engagement? Are they even still engaged? And as it relates to the original post, we are coming up on the 90 day anniversary of their announcement of retaining Marcum. Three months is not an unreasonable time period to expect some result given the size and relative simplicity of LLEG operations.
IMO once we get beyond that, questions about what is happening on that front become more germaine.
They are not "required" to do anything. It is entirely dependent on the scope of their engagement...which only they and LLEG know the details of. So as folks here like to so commonly ask...
Do you have DD as to the scope of their engagement?
Do your proper DD
So you have DD that Marcum is doing something more than a Financial Audit?
Even if the audit is completed I don't think there will be any PR from Laidlaw until this SEC matter concludes
One would think that filing a Q would be separate from the SEC issues. Why do I get the feeling that even reporting Q results or material events will be "delayed" until SEC issues resolved?
Its like the ultimate delay excuse.
I fully agree, if nothing is forthcoming from LLEG 90 days after retaining Marcum...I would seriously wonder what is being hidden.
My reference was predicated on a desire by mgt to become SEC compliant and up list.
Point was....if there is silence then it is pretty definitive that uplisting is not a priority or that the loan closing is not material to LLEG.
You are right, a Grey sheet stock has no obligation to say anything.
Just to clarify...
We are talking about the REMAINING payment due LLEG upon construction loan closing. The first payment (at least showing up as an AR in the financials) appears to be somewhere between 2.7 and 3.7 million depending on how you read them.
So my total would be around 5-6 million.
For some entertainment I think we should all throw out a number for the payout to LLEG and see who comes the closest.
I'll start.
$2.3 million
Perhaps...
Don't know about you but when a light was finally shed on the share structure, the % of equity contained in the preferred shares was a bit of a shock to me...
When one understands all the ways preferred shares can be used to stick it to common shareholders (and I am not saying that is the case here) that fact elevated the risk profile for the common shareholder significantly IMO.
The fact is, every cent of the "pending" payout could be put into the pocket of management via the preferred shares. Not saying that is what will happen, but nobody can say definitely it will not. Thus the risk is elevated.
They only own 10% of the common stock. The other 60% of equity they have is in preferred shares. Thus ALL non-insider common stock represents only 30% of the equity in LLEG according the LLEG website.
So how important is the value of the common stock to them? Not as much as one might assume if their 70% control was all common stock. It's value is more important as a vehicle to do deals.
Again, what is the payout due them going to do for the common stockholder? Based on currently available information, which ain't much unfortunately, it is reasonable to assume not much....if anything.
Maybe it will...but I have yet to see any reasonable argument that it would be meaningful in some way.
But time will tell....
Awaiting the PR.
Logic says it will. Any money coming into a company is beneficial to it's shareholders.
Logic does not say it will....the company has, in effect said it will. I have not seen any serious debate here about that.
The "beneficial" question requires more information to judge it's effect. Sure, $1 would be beneficial in some insignificant sense. But that's the question that cannot be answered, will it be significant to the shareholders in any meaningful way? That requires two pieces of information:
1. How much is it?
2. What will be done with it?
Since neither of those questions can be answered, one is left with the "wait and see" strategy...or..apply your best judgement and reason based on what is known now and act accordingly.
Awaiting the PR.
Looks like Sept 1 will be achieved. Now comes the interesting part...if loan close is a material event to LLEG then PR would be required. If one is not forthcoming, then it is very reasonable to assume it is not considered a material event by management.
So what's the over/under on when a PR will be forth coming?
AGAIN SPECULATION!!! Why not just wait for the FACTS.
In the investment world...no news is bad news. Commonly held philosophy.
And what facts might you suggest we wait for?
There is nothing that prevents a reasoned analysis of what is currently known, no matter how little. That is what good DD is ALL ABOUT. It is not "waiting for facts"...but taking what you have, making a reasoned analysis and deciding a path forward....which could be to wait.
Unfortunately, the track record of LLEG does not bode well for the "wait" strategy.
Yep... that is right when NO DATA IS PROVIDED...
KING OIL was RIGHT ON CONCERNING THE LACK OF GOOD DD PROVIDED!!
So let me see if I understand. The only rebuttal to bearspread's reasoned analysis is that there is no data. And the reason there is no data is that LLEG has not seen fit to provide any? So in the absence of that data ANY DD is going have to based on what is known...no matter how little. An investor is left with making assumptions...and on that basis it is some if the best DD I have seen.
I have yet to see anyone poke a hole in the analysis that bearspread has done....other than to say there are no facts. That is not his fault...it is the fault of LLEG. And frankly given what little is available his analysis is probably the most reasonable estimation of what that payout is going to look like.
For those that don't want to "wait and see" it is probably the best guess as to what it will be.
If someone has as detailed an anaylsis that can stand up to reason that it is in the $20-70 million range, I would love to see it.
This could be the reason for the huge 50% increase in the pps.
Seriously?????....a thousand shares ... A BUCK FIFTY trade....as in 150 PENNIES!?!?!
Somebody spent 5X on the commission!!! Because the negotiations are going smoothly?
Does anyone not look at the volume?
Up 50% today, one of the best performers of the day.
Yup. A $1.50 trade.....don't forget the $8.00 commission.
So...someone went in the hole $6.50 to dump 1000 shares...
And someone paid $9.50 to get those 1000 shares.
...that's worth hanging one's hat on! Lol
Laid - low by the - law.
4.2 seconds....
I suspect he's doing a good job, because he's the VP of project development. He identifies new project opportunities, etc. LLEG has lots of opportunities that they've been pursuing over the past year.
That might be the case for Louis....but we are talking about Alex...who would appear to be his son....and is 'associate' VP. Just seems strange...with a hint of nepotism.
Was perusing the Facebook Laidlaw page. When searching I noticed the an Alex Bravakis shows employment with Laidlaw as an "associate vice president of project development". Is this Louis Bravakis' son?
If so...is Laidlaw a family business? Was he qualified? Looks like he is pretty fresh out of school...
Ok..only two options here.
1. You are not M. Bartoszek
2. You are and truly don't get why posting on an Internet forum is just plain dumb.
What's a qualified or unqualified opinion? An opinion is not necessarily based on facts. It's just stating how you personally feel and nothing more.
The reference was not generic...but specific to an "auditor's report" "opinion".
Also the use of the word "qualified" has a completely different meaning in this context...where "unqualified" is a good thing....
That is all based on the assumption that they can get an "unqualified opinion". Hiring them was a good concrete step, no question....but whether LLEG can get an unqualified opinion is a separate question yet to be answered.
There was demonstrated complicity and professional negligence. It was also a PR hellhole...clients dropped them left, right an center.
Audit firms give "opinions" not guarantees, warranties or otherwise.
It's a great racket IMO.
That is not true in an absolute sense. Auditors are confined to analyzing the information the company provides them. If the company intentionally misleads them, provides false information, etc. then the audit firm does have an element of protection. Audit firms have problems when they are complicit in some form of obfuscation, ignore relevant information, or demonstrate some level of professional negligence.
Obviously they have an obligation to dig as hard as they can, but at the end of the day the responsibility remains with LLEG....it is not transferred to the auditor.
I want new investors to look at Laidlaw other than what is going on with the SEC. Look at the company as an investment.
How does one separate the company as an investment from what is going with the SEC? The two are intertwined. In fact, the SEC issues take precedent over anything else...no matter what happens operationally.
I don't understand why some people don't get that?
One thing he's right about... no auditor I've ever heard of would ever give out any information on a client to anyone let alone someone calling in and claiming to be a stockholder. Part of their contract is a strict confidentiality statement.
+1
When I read Sam Dan's information, my first reaction was either the interpretation was incorrect, or, someone on the other end of the phone has no idea what they are doing.
I am not sure what is difficult with the concept that an SEC suspension means they have evidence that was sufficient to warrant a suspension.
If one wants to believe they don't, or bank...literally...on the fact they used then word "questions", do so at their own peril.
Hundreds of previous suspensions of pink sheet stocks that use that same word...and are no longer around should give one pause.
That's a MIGHTY BIG "IF" imo.
I am waiting on "actual facts" to unfold, not any one-sided speculations
And therein lies the rub. If this was a situation where one could afford to "wait for the facts"...then yes, a rush to judgment would be wrong.
Unfortunately that is not what any of us, or the investment public are dealing with here. The reality is we may never know the "facts", it could be a year or two before ANYTHING is heard from the SEC or LLEG on this issue.
In the meantime, we all have to make investment decisions realtime, based on what is available to us.
Some have decided, or at least say, for the own reasons, that they will stick to this to the bitter end...or until the facts are known.
But to do so on the basis of "waiting for facts" is very risky.
If they actually wanted to go that direction they could just retire some of the 70% they own
Just to be clear they DO NOT own 70% of the common stock (they own 70% of the equity)...which was a surprise to many here. As of June 14, 2011 they only own about 10% of the common stock. The rest of the "ownership" is in preferred shares which represent 60% of the voting control.
Per the website, the 2.1 Billion of common stock owned by outsiders ONLY represents a 30% (yes THIRTY PERCENT)equity stake in the company.
At this point, I would argue that the common stock is not important to them individually other than its use as a mechanism to purchase a stake in other deals...but since it is now a grey sheet stock headed for trips that use is now in doubt.