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.
"Not seeing your point here. He mentioned stakeholders because that's the fact of the matter. Would you have felt better if he isolated us shareholders?"
I am only interested in the impact on LLEG. Everything I'm looking at is circled around that only. Once you add another group to the middle of the circle and present it as the 'new defined group' He said it was in the best interest of 'stakeholders'......what about shareholders (we ARE the ones that were sold) not the stakeholders
best said in this post
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53577704&txt2find=stakeholders
MB needs to state the goals of LLEG and back those goals with results. If it's to buy into project coordinator companies and not being the operator of a plant he needs to be clear about that. That makes all the difference in the world in how one would view buying into a 2.4bil share pink sheet stock.
"No one wants to invest in a development company whose business model is being a development company"
not at 2.4bil shares outstanding and on the pink sheets
and let's now add in the 'stakeholders' that MB intro'd into the equation...
what current situation
you need the definition of ALL shares of LLEG if there are more...example common shares, preferred, preferred convertible....we need to know the entire share structure of LLEG in order to determine any value assigned here.....then are there any expenses over the years that will be deducted from that value, eg. MB and other officer back salaries, would there be a tax obligation from the equity sale? there are just tons of possible expenses that could be applied to the sales $$$'s from this transaction....
"You'll get your. 04"
how?
he referenced stakeholders...that translates to more than LLEG
did you take into account any debt LLEG has accumulated over the years since he started this venture years ago?
and uplisting for 3.0 bil shares plus and preferred if there are any would most likely not happen without a major reverse split imo so if you take it from that point folks would have to prove where any r/s worked in the interest of shareholders. Generally the ones that bought in after if the company is able to gain footing in the business plan benefit....any who bought in before statistics say (referencing r/s) lose. If he gave x amount of shares of NewCo to shareholders based on their holdings (example 1 for every 1000 shares owned you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what the possibilites of that are. That's my perception of anything that I'm looking at now for possibilities other than leaving LLEG as MB presented it to purchasing shareholders and letting it develop in that process. We now look like fraternal twins....shareholders and stakeholders all sharing the same pie vs. the only public aspect of this equation LLEG being the only publically traded company and perception rules.
"Laidlaw Energy Group (LLEG) is engaged in the development of independent power plants that generate electricity from renewable resources. LLEG's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of renewable energy facilities through development, acquisition, conversion of existing facilities and through partnering with manufactures that have significant electric and thermal needs. This area is the area for news and stories on Laidlaw Energy Group."
http://laidlawenergy.com/news.html
that's what shareholders bought into...if he in fact put shareholder money in a company that did not materialize that for shareholders knowing in advance the goals were OPPOSITE shareholders need answers.
how much do you think we've been devalued by that if it happens.
Don't forget he carefully used the word 'stakeholders'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder
"Mike's job as CEO is not to appease shareholders."
You are correct. His job is to put out PR's that represent his business goals and he did just that.
"Laidlaw Energy Group (LLEG) is engaged in the development of independent power plants that generate electricity from renewable resources. LLEG's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of renewable energy facilities through development, acquisition, conversion of existing facilities and through partnering with manufactures that have significant electric and thermal needs. This area is the area for news and stories on Laidlaw Energy Group"
http://laidlawenergy.com/news.html
shareholders bought into this...this board contains posts that represent that and only that
now we find out that wasn't his goal right along as stated in the Laconia article.
""Asked to explain the change......."“From Laidlaw’s perspective this
is a good deal for a number of reasons.
Certainly it validates our business
model. Our goal in Berlin as the
project’s sponsor has been to assemble
and manage all of the components to
make it a successful project. Specifi -
cally, acquiring the property, assembling
the project team, arranging
development fi nancing, arranging for
permits, negotiating and executing
the PPA and other key contracts and
positioning the project for construction
fi nancing. We have accomplished
almost all of our objectives and hopefully
once the permitting process is
complete we will be able to promptly
complete the construction fi nancing
and achieve our goal to commence
construction by the end of the year.
At that point the EPC contractor and
LAIDLAW from page 6 those charged with overseeing construction
have a much larger role and
it makes sense for us to take a back
seat and focus our efforts elsewhere.
This is the natural evolution of a project
of this type. Obviously we feel this
deal with Newco is a very good deal
for Laidlaw and its stakeholders or
we wouldn’t have done it so we are
very happy with the outcome,” he concluded.""
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/8/20B.pdf
based on what you read this week where does the LLEG stock place in this transaction?
the maryland daily sun?
information goes to press day after he tells folks on this board he can't disclose because of confidentiality? I was stunned at the level of detail that newspaper had that was never disclosed to us
hopefully I responded in kind lol! Your ipo idea is interesting but this is my fear 2.4bil shares outstanding will not be rolled into an IPO one for one
Laidlaw Energy is LLEG and the equity position for it seems to have disappeared....rather than be put in a portfolio to contribute to the growth as stated in all it's PR's.
all of this needs to be looked at carefully from the distribution of information to shareholders which resulted in purchase of shares to the all of a sudden (at least a surprise to me) major change in the goal to:
“From Laidlaw’s perspective this
is a good deal for a number of reasons.
Certainly it validates our business
model. Our goal in Berlin as the
project’s sponsor has been to assemble
and manage all of the components to
make it a successful project. Specifi -
cally, acquiring the property, assembling
the project team, arranging
development fi nancing, arranging for
permits, negotiating and executing
the PPA and other key contracts and
positioning the project for construction
fi nancing. We have accomplished
almost all of our objectives and hopefully
once the permitting process is
complete we will be able to promptly
complete the construction fi nancing
and achieve our goal to commence
construction by the end of the year.
At that point the EPC contractor and
LAIDLAW from page 6 those charged with overseeing construction
have a much larger role and
it makes sense for us to take a back
seat and focus our efforts elsewhere.
This is the natural evolution of a project
of this type. Obviously we feel this
deal with Newco is a very good deal
for Laidlaw and its stakeholders or
we wouldn’t have done it so we are
very happy with the outcome,” he concluded.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2010/8/20B.pdf
the question for me is were we mislead?
from the header of their PR page
"Laidlaw Energy Group (LLEG) is engaged in the development of independent power plants that generate electricity from renewable resources. LLEG's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of renewable energy facilities through development, acquisition, conversion of existing facilities and through partnering with manufactures that have significant electric and thermal needs. This area is the area for news and stories on Laidlaw Energy Group. "
http://laidlawenergy.com/news.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what needs to be established here is what value LLEG shareholders got for this sale and if the value takes us to where we could have gone had LLEG followed their PR language. That needs to be carefully analyzed. I don't see anything in these PR's that state:
"Asked to explain the change......."“From Laidlaw’s perspective this
is a good deal for a number of reasons.
Certainly it validates our business
model. Our goal in Berlin as the
project’s sponsor has been to assemble
and manage all of the components to
make it a successful project. Specifi -
cally, acquiring the property, assembling
the project team, arranging
development fi nancing, arranging for
permits, negotiating and executing
the PPA and other key contracts and
positioning the project for construction
fi nancing. We have accomplished
almost all of our objectives and hopefully
once the permitting process is
complete we will be able to promptly
complete the construction fi nancing
and achieve our goal to commence
construction by the end of the year.
At that point the EPC contractor and
LAIDLAW from page 6 those charged with overseeing construction
have a much larger role and
it makes sense for us to take a back
seat and focus our efforts elsewhere.
This is the natural evolution of a project
of this type. Obviously we feel this
deal with Newco is a very good deal
for Laidlaw and its stakeholders or
we wouldn’t have done it so we are
very happy with the outcome,” he concluded."
WHERE WAS THIS IN ANY PR?
"Laidlaw
Energy's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of biomass facilities through the
development of new facilities and acquisition of existing facilities, and in so doing become the
leading supplier of biomass power in the United States. Laidlaw Energy is headquartered in
New York, New York. For more information, please visit our website at
www.LaidlawEnergy.com"
from the 01/05/2009 PR
where does it say project management goal?
and herein lies the problem ken...
"About Laidlaw Energy Group
Laidlaw Energy is engaged in the development of independent power plants that generate electricity from renewable resources, with a particular emphasis on biomass power. Laidlaw Energy's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of biomass facilities through the development of new facilities and acquisition of existing facilities, and in so doing become the leading supplier of biomass power in the United States. Laidlaw Energy is headquartered in
New York, New York."
the pr's are misleading....I didn't buy a share in this company based on their being a project management company. Those types of companies develop a 'job rate' and charge that to their customers. For a company with 2mil shares in the pot that might be lucrative to shareholders but to a company with an a/s of 3bil and 2.4 in the pot I frankly don't see the potential.
But beyond that..............were we mislead with the PR's. That really becomes a question to the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) if it comes to that.
LLEG is already public...you must be mixing it up with something else?
discreet...referencing delete as it relates to posts is against the TOU. I'll let this slide because i'm interested in the chart but be careful in the future
the carefully selected use of the word 'stakeholder' needs to be examined very closely.
lol they are like darrel darrel and darrel
http://laidlawenergy.com/images/homeland%20Laidlaw%20joint%20news%20release%20final%209-21-09.pdf
Laidlaw shows up frequently in the new companies. What needs to be separated out is Laidlaw the LLEG symbol company and Laidlaw the non LLEG symbol company
exactly CTTC if they are down to one company NewCo
again, look at the chart in the ibox
reread the communications that came out about the transaction
move the players out that were moved out in that communication
and the right side remains.....now the next question. are they the stakeholders (the group you mentioned here)
and if yes....
what about the shareholders
something in the middle...you can question this for clarification. I did. No response yet.
sage....look at the chart in the ibox...follow the 2 companies involved in the sale. Looks like the left side of the chart is wiped out and the right side remains...are they the stakeholders?
What about the shareholders? no mention of those folks
follow the 2 companies on the chart in the ibox and you will see that lleg shareholders appear to be wiped out...now are the stakeholders the other 1/2 that remain? look at the chart in the ibox very closey....then read that section again about the 2 companies that were involved with the sale....and what is left on the chart appears to be the right side and those folks are not shareholders but could be considered stakeholders?
now this deal is good for stakeholders.....what about shareholders?
it's a dangerous part to follow lilpup without clarification from MB on the perceived change from operator to project manager ouch!
the role plus the value of a project management company which LLEG appears to be now marketing itself as (altho attempting to say that was their goal right along) and the value of being the operator of a biomass plant (which is what folks were lead to believe from the PR's) huge difference IMO and then when you add in 2.4bil shares it's looks even less lucrative to shareholders from what I can see
they are not the developer....they are the arranger of development services. There's a major difference there Matt. You need to read it over and over and over and match it against the ibox charge of ownership and you'll see...there is no LLEG left in that equation at all...if what you put up is correct
"The organizational chart shows no percentages of ownership and Mike has flat out denied that we were sold out of the Berlin operation entirely on Byte&chew. "
read the chart in the ibox
"First, under the LLEG ticker, the permit will be granted causing a huge surge in pps."
follow the data that came out then plug those companies into the chart in the Ibox....where do you see LLEG even involved with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder
I wouldn't assign any different definition to this word stakeholder than is already describe
so what about the shareholders?
with 2.4bil shares a project mgnt company isn't going to get much shareholder value in my opinion...
but the real question is when did it change to a project management company from a PR blitz of a company looking to accumulate biomass companies and be the largest distributor???????
refer back to PR list I posted.....
here's prior press releases
http://laidlawenergy.com/news.html
well the company could have several companies and only LLEG is the public one...once the equity was sold that looks like it puts LLEG shareholders out of the picture (but I'll wait out what MB has to say)....looking at the chart and reading the document both come up gooseeggs for ownership by LLEG shareholders if all this passes...there are multiple companies listed on that chart in the IBOX...looks like LLEG is the only public one right now
when did he change goals?
http://laidlawenergy.com/images/LLEG%20Fraser%20News%20Release%205-11-09.pdf
certainly wasn't in that PR
"Laidlaw Energy's mission is to build and manage a profitable portfolio of biomass facilities through the development of new facilities and acquisition of existing facilities, and in so doing become the leading supplier of biomass power in the United States. Laidlaw Energy is headquartered in New York, New York."
http://laidlawenergy.com/images/LLEG%20Fraser%20News%20Release%205-11-09.pdf