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.
Tenkay I'm trying to give the faithful herd my best case scenario in assuming the $2.7M did arrive on the books
Ahh, thanks.
To be honest, I am not as charitable. If the sales agreement was signed in September and the number one (only??) receivable was still AR after 90 days tells me there may have been something else tied to payment.
but that's just me.
You start with $2.7M of cash on the books
Where do you get this? Is it the "financials" they released in March?
I thought the $2.7 million was an "account receivable" as of Dec 31, 2010 (actually $2.4 MM). Do we know if they have collected? I recall the cash position was about $745K and change at that time...and as far as I know they haven't said anything more.
...and until AR is turned into cash..it ain't cash.
Management has been gagged by attorneys
You can safely bet that any "gagging" of management by the attorneys will ONLY relate to any discussion or disclosure regarding the SEC investigation, actions or issues relating to such.
There is no way any securities attorney is going to say "don't communicate your investors" or "don't release ANY PR".
This would ESPECIALLY be the case for a material event. Not disclosing could be bad or worse.
Lleg probably still will be paid.
If Cate Street backs out....sells....or whatever, I would not hold my breath on this one.
I was perusing the minutes of one of the PUC or SEC meetings awhile back. Can't find the minutes now...but there was a reference to "consulting" or "managment" fees/contract from the new Berlin owner that was DIRECTLY with the LLEG principals. It appeared the fees would not come through LLEG.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? or did I misread this? Might explain the low salary costs in the "financials".
And, the SEC attorney has told the powers-at-be to 'be quiet & issue no PRs' until he's has the situation resolved
Well, if that is the case, you could be waiting for a PR for a long time.
The reality is more likely that the attorney has told them not to comment on, or release a PR, regarding the SEC's concerns or its investigation.
I highly doubt that they have been told to not PR at all. There is nothing stopping a company from issuing a PR about a material event. There certainly is no rational reason to cease all official communication with shareholders...unless you have nothing good to say.
What is stopping them from issuing a Q for Jan-Mar??...tell us if the A/R for the first payment has been collected? Why would a lawyer tell them not to do that I wonder???
How is the SEC going to make a spot determination that a statement is "true" and "approve" it, or even that it is "over the top" or not?
Companies are ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY and SOLELY responsible for the content of a PR.
The SEC only works under the process that you put it out and if they have a problem they will let you know.
Laidlaw can craft a PR that meets with the approval of the SEC. Do a PR and run it by the SEC before release.
FYI - the SEC does not "approve" PRs. There is no way they are going to comment, or otherwise review, a PR prior to release.
In otherwords, there is no "cover" LLEG can obtain.
It is probably one of the reasons they have not PR'd. But there is nothing actively blocking them except their lawyers...and/or the nature of what they would need to discuss.
Semantics.
IMO, exactly as LLEG wants it.
donk donk donk...Hello? They did "just say that".
and "substantial stakeholder" definitely means "equity holder" how?
Why not just say "remains an equity holder, however, until the terms...blah, blah".
Ahhh..but they don't do that...they used the very nebulous and broad term "stakeholder".
If you think they introduced the term "stakeholder" somewhat randomly and in way so as not to obscure what their continuing interest will be...then have at it. I won't try to convince otherwise.
"partial compensation from the sale of certain project holdings in 2010"
You just answered your own question...
And that definitely means they have currently have an equity stake how?
Yes, yes...one can infer it means that the T&C's of the sale purchase agreement has not been satisfied and thus they some claim to equity. Which is exactly, IMO, what they want to allow people to believe who are inclined to do so. A little smoke, a few mirrors.
So as I said earlier it comes down to how one WANTS to interpret it.
But the simplest plain reading is that they sold the equity. It is gone. To interpret otherwise takes some logical gymnastics to get there based on what they said.
For the life of me, if they indeed retained that interest until ALL payments are made...or part of it...why don't they just say that?
For pink/grey stocks what is NOT SAID is ALWAYS more important than what IS SAID.
Sorry Ten but your continued assertion that LLEG's equity interest is gone without FULL PAYMENT
There equity interest is gone. However, what is clear is that they have gone to great lengths to allow someone to believe they still have an interest if they were inclined to do so.
I do grant you that one could infer they have an equity interest still, which you are doing. But when you put together all that they have said it is pretty clear it is gone.
From home page of the companies website:
"From the project's inception in 2006 through October 2010 when we profitably sold our equity stake to private equity investors" Sounds past tense to me.
The 5/22/11 PR “though we fully expect all of the details of our sale of this project's equity holdings and our continued obligations pursuant to certain Management Services Agreements to be addressed in our upcoming filing with the U.S. SEC” Sounds past tense to me
The 2/22/11 PR “…announced today that it had 2010 net income of $2,441,892 on revenues of $4,135,055. LLEG generated revenues from both management fees and partial compensation from the sale of certain project holdings in 2010. Sounds past tense to me
You are hanging your hat on the extreme vagueness of the 2/22 PR and the NH Biomass webpage to assert that they have an equity interest when nothing they have said clearly states that...to the contrary a plain reading of everything they have said in total would STRONGLY imply the exact opposite.
But you are right...you do have to assume something to make either argument....because they were anything but clear.
So we are left with one interpretation over another. It appears you are comfortable with yours, and I am comfortable with mine.
Others can look at both our arguments and judge for themselves.
You have to read the context TenKay. Ignoring the word "however" for the moment, it says that LLEG is a stakeholder
If you ignore the "however", you get a little closer to it being a possibility. But the "however" IS THERE and it contrasts the "stakeholder" characterization to the "equity holder"...therefore the equity was sold. That "however" is there for a reason.
A plain reading of the website text (which I assume was agonized over by there lawyers...since this was one of the post-suspension additions) is that they sold their equity completely for the initial payment. There is a second payment due based on Cate achieving a milestone that represents an enhanced value of the asset. It appears that they were willing to reward LLEG for that if it happened. This does not mean they retained equity...or it reverts back to them. If it does, why not just say that?
IMO the "stakeholder" means additional payment, which most here seem to agree with. These types of "additional" payments are included all the time in sale/purchase agreements when there is an uncertainty over the value of a component of the asset that will be fixed at a later date. That additional payment amount is predicated on achieving something later on. It rarely means that the asset transfer does/did not happen.
I think the words on the website were choosed VERY CAREFULLY, including the "stakeholder" and "however" to keep some mystery and allow people to see what they want to see based on their interest.
Had you read this, you'd realize that making a simple initial payment on an obligation does NOT fullfill the requirement to close and finalize the equity sale. As noted in the post above, from the LLEG website, UNTIL THE TERMS OF THE TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, LLEG WILL RETAIN ITS EQUITY INTEREST.
That is not what the website says. It says:
"Laidlaw currently remains a substantial stakeholder in the project, however, until the terms of the transaction have been satisfied."
There is a PERIOD after "satisfied". There is no mention of equity. The only term used is "stakeholder". You are inferring that means equity holder. It could mean any number of things. The fact that they did not specifically use the term equity holder, means that is not likely what they meant. You also have no idea what the agreement of sale says.
It would be very simple for LLEG to clear this up.
They couldn't...at least leave the SEC problem behind and it would not be a new stock issue.
I could play out the hypothetical in some detail...but it would probably only lead to a bunch of responses with the CAPS lock on.
Then announce the outstanding common stock will be bought at that price, and the company is being taken private.
I think you would see a massive R/S before you would see that. They could then start over.
Didn't the public entity LLEG come to be through a reverse merger?
UNTIL THE TERMS OF THE TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, LLEG WILL RETAIN ITS EQUITY INTEREST
Can you point out where it says "LEGG will retain its equity interest"?
I do believe that Cate Street is making a last ditch attempt to get the opponent IPP(s) back in line. Public pressure, media, political, etc.
But I would think that something needs to break loose soon...as in days...maybe a week or so.
The chances of this getting worked out drop each day.
I'd say it is dependent on how long the SEC investigation is
So what is your opinion? How many months need to pass before your level of concern starts to increase significantly?
If I said a minimum of six months for the SEC to even hint at a proposed resolution to LLEG, would that surprise you?
Uplisting is in the works so we should not be here to much longer
Just curious, how long, in your mind, is "not too much longer", and, how much time would have to pass without the uplisting happening before you would be concerned (I am assuming you are not at the moment)?
I am interested in what a long's expectation is?
So can someone tell me whether this stock is suspended or not?
The stock was suspended on June 7 for 10 days. It re-opened on the grey sheets and started trading again on June 22.
Whether there still exists $2.7M cash on the sheets is speculative
My understanding is it was never "cash". As of Dec 2010 it was an account receivable. There is no indication yet as to whether it was paid or not.
I hope it was...otherwise it could be yet another battle.
This was actually my first thought. As of Dec 31, 2010 it was only AR and not cash in the bank. The question is whether this is a last attempt negotiating tactic or whether the finance guys are taking their marbles somewhere else.
WHAT IS THE DATE OF THIS PR?????
According to the NHPR website it is FRIDAY, JULY 01, 2011
it boils down to what each of our definitions of the word "action" is based on the first para of the origin post of this thread.
for me the "action" definition is simple.
It is the SEC's suspension 'action'.
That action is based on their own investigation and what they found and their judgment of the necessity of a suspension.
How their interest was triggered is really immaterial.
Could've happened to LLEG.
Of course it could. You need to read what I said again. In fact it may be likely.
The point is they do not suspend based solely on a complaint. They do their own investigation. Their decisions are based on what THEY find regardless of how that interest is triggered.
The pure folly would be to suggest that they got a "complaint" or ten and said "wow, we better suspend to see if there is anything to these complaints".
That is not how it works.
The grey sheets are interesting...that is for sure!
As has been pointed out numerous times. The SEC does its own investigating. They are not going to take action on the basis of a complaint or two or 10. Although the idea may be attractive to you that this is the result of someone, or small group of individuals trying to use the SEC to torpedo a company, that is not how it works. And LLEG would not be unique in someone trying to do so.
How often do you think they SEC gets a complaint about a pink? More than you would care to admit.
Could this have been the result of complaint? Yes...but only AFTER the SEC had done its own investigating and determined that there was a basis to suspend the stock, which is a decision that is not made lightly. If it was you would see a dozen pinks suspended each week.
I place the blame here right where it belongs,on over-jealous new cowboys at the sec
There are over 6,000 pink sheet securities....why pick on LLEG?
Is this a spin off from Laidlaw Environmental?
No. Laidlaw Environmental was a Canadian company that merge with Safety Kleen
.....based on current share (all classes) when fully diluted they own 70%
I would very much like to know if they ever owned a greater % of the common stock than the 10% of it they control now? I still find the posts from Feb 22 very interesting regarding the stock PPS movement that day....especially if the answer to the first question is yes.
The intention of every long is to sell...someday.
But the volume and PPS are pretty much meaningless at the moment either way. Although it is too early really tell, LLEG appears to be following a fairly typical trajectory for a new listing on the grey sheets.
Time is an enemy, so hopefully LLEG can have some meaningful info soon.
Amazing, a float of several billion and a measly 3 mill trade in the whole day. Seems to me that there is a lot of people holding this stock that believe in LLEG.
I guess that is one way to look at it...so if LLEG's volume drops to <1 mill per day, you will be ecstatic ?!?
Belief on the part of existing shareholder's won't get you much.
Gaining the belief of new ones is what matters.
When this SEC thing gets ironed out we won't see these prices again, ever.
If you know anything about SEC investigations it will be 6-8 months minimum before anything of substance can be said one way or another by LLEG. That is the problem with SEC investigations, they take a long time...and you don't hear anything. They won't even tell you if they have stopped or are satisfied.
Could LLEG be one company that charts a different path with the SEC? Anything is possible I guess. But that is pure hope and wishful thinking unfortunately.
Some made some serious money this week.
What do you consider serious money and how was it made?
About $160K worth of stock traded hands this week and it has gotten no higher than about 60% of it pre-suspension price. Do you think most of the trading this week was flipping today and yesterday?
That would be nice however the min list price is .25 for the BX Venture Market PAGE 8.
A 500>1 R/S should do the trick.
Thus NO REAL DILUTION OF O/S.
Except the website clearly states:
"Taking into account all classes of equity securities, management currently owns approximately 70% of the Company's equity securities on a fully diluted basis."
And they only own about 10% of the O/S common stock.
What else is one to read from that?
Have they applied for this?
Questions, questions...
The reason I got out was this preferred issue..and every new little tidbit was raising the risk and it started to require a more emotional belief to justifiy staying in. I don't do emotion on this stuff.
I got burned many years ago on nebulous preferred stock issues...they diluted the common down the toilet followed by a massive R/S (under the "we were forced to" excuse) and obliterated the regular shareholders. Learned my lesson. I don't believe that was the plan going in...but when things started to fall apart common shareholders are the first ones overboard.
I truly hope everyone well. Just fell outside my zone.
Sorry I thought you were referring to the Susanville preferred. The even number of "60%" tells me it may be a fixed conversion for the mgt preferred. But who knows. Like I said earlier...if it is not and is dollar for dollar and the 60% was based on 0.0052 or some higher common stock price...that ownership may be at 80-90% at 0.002. Who knows.
If we see another filing, I would expect this to be in there in much mroe detail. Time will tell. I am a bit surprised that some longs are not hammering the company for this info.
what is the conversion rate?
I would bet dollar for dollar (otherwise the deal would be hard to complete IMO)...in which case the 3 Bil ain't enough.