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.
There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Herzog is part of scheme with US Capital Funding. This SBLC party is very new to the story.
Based on his record to date, he has been trying every avenue to raise funds to further the Indian solar energy projects. We do need to give him credit where credit is due by persevering through the Patriot Act issues. Many people half his age would have thrown in the towel at that point. On that basis, I would give him some leeway.
As a smaller BGMO shareholder, I can say that patience is running thin. The missed deadlines and changes in tactics without any explanation does frustrate investors. What is needed badly is some bonafide evidence of bankable financing as well as the trappings of being a real business such as an AGM and audited statements.
The US Capital Funding story is unclear at best.
There is no evidence of the company being registered as a financial institution such as a bank, trust company, investment dealer and the like at the federal or state level.
There is no evidence that the company has depositor insurance for any deposits that it may have on hand.
At best, we can speculate that it is a lender of securitized assets. Now to claim that US Capital Funding has trillions in assets without being a regulated institution is a stretch of the imagination. Millions perhaps - trillions most unlikely. To suggest that the firm has more assets than the world's largest bak or the largest bank in the United States or even greater than China's investment in US treasuries is potentially misleading.
With the additional hard data of a sister company's charter cancelled for lack of filing annual returns with a similar fate for the Georgia company now evident does raise some question on US Capital Funding's back office functions. However, a review of the registered address of US Capital Funding indicates either a daily/weekly/monthly rental of an office or two within a executive suite arrangement does raise an eyebrow of the prospective permanence of the company. Mind you, the Georgia company is still very young having been around for only two years!
I am not saying that BGMO did not get a piece of paper from US Capital Funding. The ultimate question will be if any regulated institution will accept the document as valuable to grant credit to deploy.
With the reverse stock split comes with it a reduction in the number of shares held.
From what I see on BigCharts for early February 2011, VYGO was trading at over 60 cents on an adjusted basis. Oops, a 70% haircut?
Also, if you bought into an exciting alternative oil business one week and the next week it is a scrap dealer, wouldn't you be miffed? It would be like buying into BGMO now with the hopes and dreams of scoring big in the Indian solar field only to be changed into a jam and jellies maker next month.
I bought my shares before there was any relationship with the new IR firm and the SBLC provider. It is only coincidental that the two new parties have the same connections at GLEC.
Neither BGMO or GLEC have said anything about each other.
What is the connection between BGMO and GLEC?
BGMO is now using the same IR firm as GLEC.
GLEC is also related to Esoft from a financing perspective including the payment of SWIFT fees, SBLC's and the like.
Consider this fellow punters...
We know that the "funding" is coming from US Capital Funding.
We also know that the company was formed in Georgia on October 10th, 2008.
U.S. CAPITAL FUNDING II SER TRST I, INC. Current Name
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
Control No.: 08078070
Status: Active/Owes Current Year AR
Entity Creation Date: 10/10/2008
Jurisdiction: GA
Principal Office Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd.
Bldg 400 Suite 300
Duluth GA 30096
Last Annual Registration Filed Date: 2/5/2010
Last Annual Registration Filed: 2010
A quick search on Google reveals that 3235 Satellite Blvd, Building 400, Suite 300, is an execu-suite style of offices where you rent the office by the day, week or month.
The link and some of the site information follows below:
http://officesuitesplus.com/locations/duluth_north_gwinnett_gwinnett_place
Office Suites Plus
To get started, email or call us 800.514.0545
"From the onset, the staff was instrumental in fulfilling our administrative and support requirements enabling us to function operationally in record time."
James Bauer
Federal Air Marshal Service
Inquire about Private and Shared Offices
Virtual Office Packages
Meeting Rooms & Videoconferencing
Office Business Center Industry Leaders Create Preferred Office Network, LLC. Read more
Tel: 770.291.2222
View Photos for North Gwinnett
Office Suites PLUS at North Gwinnett (Gwinnett Place) is located across the street from Gwinnett Place Mall on Satellite Boulevard just north of Pleasant Hill Road.
From the building lobby’s marble floor to the mahogany paneling, you and your clients will notice an immediate air of distinction. Building amenities include a fitness center, on-site security, and a three point access card security system for after hours. A beautifully appointed reception area, state-of-the-art-connectivity, and a friendly and professional staff that can provide support services are just a few of the services you’ll enjoy. Our office space boasts private, shared, and guest office suites; virtual offices, two meeting rooms, and a seminar/training room.
This northeast Atlanta location offers many conveniences with its close proximity to the mall, fine restaurants, hotels, shopping, residential areas, and easy access to I-85. Our executive suite is three miles from the Gwinnett Civic Center, Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce. and the Jacqueline Casey Hudgens Center for the Arts; only 10 minutes from downtown Duluth, five miles from Park Village shopping center, 32 miles from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), and 30 minutes from downtown Atlanta.
If you are searching for furnished office space or other business services in the Atlanta area, we invite you to stop by today!
North Gwinnett
3235 Satellite Blvd, Duluth GA, 30096
North Gwinnett boasts a warm community atmosphere. Each morning we enjoy greeting all of our clients by name and would love to make you feel just as welcome.
Carley Gillespie
Suite Manager
Available Amenities
Private and Shared Furnished Offices
PRIVATE OFFICE: Fully furnished office—including a desk, credenza, desk chair, guest chair, and filing cabinet—in addition to a telephone with voice mail and Internet access
SHARED OFFICE: Furnished office use with Internet access in a friendly, collaborative business environment
Virtual Offices
Services include a business address, personalized telephone answering, voice mail, access to clerical support, and use of private guest offices and meeting rooms
Personalized Telephone Answering
Professional, personalized call answering and processing of your calls by our friendly staff
Expanded Call Processing Services
Caller services available include call screening, remote notification, call patching, auto attendant, remote call forwarding, and toll free numbers
Telephone and Voice Mail System
Telephone is provided with a direct inward dial telephone number, a rollover line, and voice mail accessible from any phone at any time with several programmable features
Expanded Bandwidth Options
Additional bandwidth options available based on location
Wireless Internet
Wireless Internet access available throughout suite
Meeting Rooms
Dedicated meeting rooms designed and furnished for maximum efficiency with Internet access
Seminar / Training Room
Large seminar/training room provides the space and furnishings needed for small classes and large training sessions with Internet access
Free Parking
Complimentary easily accessible parking
Break Room / Commons Area
Break room/kitchen and lobby with complimentary coffee available
Clerical Support
Administrative services made available by our pleasant, proficient staff
Notary Service
Notary services made available by notary public on staff
Mail Receipt
Packages and mail sent to you at our prestigious business address are received by our staff
Access to Copier, Scanner and Fax
Shared copier, scanner, and fax equipment available in our dedicated copy room for your convenience
Georgia Alliance of Private Clubs
Access to over 20 private clubs and golf partners in the metro-Atlanta area
Gym Access
Access available to an on-site gym for your convenience
If this entity has $ 4 trillion dollars in assets (near double the size of Bank of America) and has AAA rated securities, wouldn't you think that the company would have a more permanent office space? Surely, they could afford it.
We did some more digging, this time in the State of Florida.
US Capital Funding was also formed there as well.
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Profit Corporation
U.S. CAPITAL FUNDING II SER TRST I, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P09000063898
FEI/EIN Number NONE
Date Filed 07/28/2009
State FL
Status INACTIVE
Effective Date 07/23/2009
Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
Event Date Filed 09/24/2010
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
3235 SATELLITE BLVD. BLDG. 400
300
DULUTH GA 30096
Mailing Address
3235 SATELLITE BLVD. BLDG. 400
300
DULUTH GA 30096
Registered Agent Name & Address
PRUDEN, DOUGLAS H
3564 AVALON PARK BLVD.
201
ORLANDO FL 32828 US
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title P
FOWLER, ROBERT
3235 SATELLITE BLVD. BLDG. 400 STE.300
DULUTH GA 30096 US
Title VP
PICKETT, TAWANNA
3235 SATELLITE BLVD. BLDG. 400 STE.300
DULUTH GA 30096 US
Title SEC
BESS, DOWAIN
3235 SATELLITE BLVD. BLDG.400 STE.300
DULUTH GA 30096 US
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
The company was dissolved for the failure to file an annual return which will likely be the fate of the Georgia company.
The interesting thing about Florida companies is a little known constitutional matter of the homestead provision. Generally speaking, no claim can be made against the home (homestead) of a director, officer or other insider of a corporation as a result of a civil action including bankruptcy. People use Florida companies to shield themselves from risky undertakings.
I am not suggesting that anything is illegal just out of place given the purported stature of the funding. My Spidey sense is telling me to be cautious.
How do you place this story in context of Bergamo's admission on February 23rd where Mr. Herzog says that it will take a little while longer to detail where the money is and in which account it has been deposited?
This week's press release does not add further proof of funds but it leaves the door open that the funds will be here very soon. Another two weeks?
The logical extension of that is that monies had not yet been received as of the date of the previously issued financial statements; the 23rd of February and likely as of the press release earlier this week. Had monies would have been received by say the February 23rd date, the issue of the Illinois and New York lawsuits would have never have made it into court let alone into the blogs. Likewise, had the monies been there or bankable securities, there would have been no need to increase the issued shares to cover off the recent report by Cohen and likely the new investors relations service.
Do we know what our stake is in Suntrough right now?
In the absence of anything reported by our leader and by Suntrough, I suspect that no ownership position exists. There may be an earn in type of deal based on sales that we give Suntrough. I have heard of a few of those before.
What is the scoop here?
I would be inclined to say "objective".
A reasoned and informed review of the public record does not validate the statements made to date.
As I have stated before, I think BGMO is onto something valuable in the Indian solar business.
Just to give everyone an idea on how easy it is to get big funding fast, look at the following deal:
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this document is proprietary. Any sharing of this information with any third parties without the express written consent of @#$ Capital Group is strictly
prohibited.
By viewing this document you agree to the above terms and conditions.
Project Funding through Certificate of Deposit (CD) Program - Cost $675,000 USD LENDER issues a Term Sheet to the borrower, guaranteeing that LENDER will fund their project through the bank CD program. A $100M leased CD will provide approximately $150M in financing from our proprietary investor group. In the event a Borrower is looking to borrow a sum over $150M multiple CD's can be secured. LENDER will syndicate the investor group under LENDER's name. The interest rate is 1.5% to 2.5% over one year LIBOR, up to 60 months and up to five points for the lender and broker. Interest reserve and fees are added to the loan amount.
To qualify for funding with this CD program, the borrower must prove to LENDER that the loan can be paid back or the debt be serviced by the projects income. Once the Term Sheet is signed the process is initiated by wiring the required funds to a USA bonded escrow company for the securing of a bank CD.
Once the CD is secured with the $675K, the CD will be posted on 123.com for viewing. LENDER is now the title holder of the CD.
This CD is lienable and callable, which means when assigned to the investor as beneficiary, the investor now has a $100M leased instrument which the investor can cash in should something happen to the project or the loan. LENDER is responsible to the bank should the investor claim on the CD. The syndicated lending group now has first lien position in the project along with additional collateral being the CD. LENDER will return the $675,000 to the borrower within 7 banking days after the CD closes escrow with affiliated syndicated investor or investors. This process normally takes between 45-60 days.
LENDER shall pay all additional costs and expenses incurred in connection with a Commitment and the preparation for and the closing of the Loan. LENDER will be responsible for the following expected costs: site visits, travel, lodging, car rental, internal underwriting and processing charges, including overnight mail services, underwriting resources and personnel, legal expenses, and for third party report engagements—and any contingency or collateral commitment expenses that may ensue. LENDER will be reimbursed for these costs at loan closing by borrower. Borrower will be furnished at closing an itemized list of third party costs at escrow. LENDER will then complete any due diligence left on the file and issue loan documents within 45-120 days after the signed term sheet is returned to LENDER. After the loan documents are signed and returned to LENDER we will then close escrow and disburse funds in accordance with the detailed use of funds schedule. If the loan does not close for any reason, LENDER will reimburse all fees and issue a denial letter explaining why the project was not funded.
NOTE: Should this program no longer become available, LENDER reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to utilize the Collateral Commitment Fee to secure any AAA rated Bank Security to assist in funding the projects pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Said securities may include additional Bank Certificates of Deposit, United States Treasuries or Bank Guarantees.
Does any of this sound familiar?
The above came to me from a BC agent for a US company. The name of the company and the related website were changed by me to protect (sic) their identity.
Take a look at some of the duties and responsibilities of the Lender, the fees payable and so forth. Is this a case of deja vu?
There are two fundamental issues with the document.
These ratings are dated from a time when ABS were in vogue and had high ratings. Comes the credit crunch two months after the report, and most asset backed securities became illiquid and fetched as low as 30 cents on the dollar. So, a rating of AAA for a derivative investment in 2008 would more than likely be closer to a single B or lower.
The other glaring issue is that the reference to US Capital Funding was prior to the creation of the company. So, obviously, it cannot be the same security. A similar name but not the same. Older ratings as far back as 2000 have different company names but so similar the typical reader loses the subtle difference.
Something is not adding up. See why...
LandCo Enterprises was formed on April 16th, 2009 by Patrick Brandon. It was dissolved a year later on September 18th
Business Name History
Name Name Type
LANDCO ENTERPRISES INC. Current Name
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
Control No.: 09027513
Status: Admin. Dissolved
Entity Creation Date: 4/16/2009
Dissolve Date: 9/18/2010
Jurisdiction: GA
Principal Office Address: 2744 GORDON BANKS
SUITE 100
DULUTH GA 30097
Registered Agent
Agent Name: BRANDON, PATRICK
Office Address: 2744 GORDON BANKS
DULUTH GA 30097
Agent County: Gwinnett
What seems to be emerging is that the public facts to not align with statements being made.
It is reported that US Capital Funding has $ 4 trillion in assets yet no bank in the world has that amount of assets.
The date of the Fitch credit rating predates the incorporation of the firm so it is not relevant as it is a different firm than the current one.
US Capital Funding does not appear to be a registered bank or trust company regulated by the federal or Georgia government.
The US Capital Funding company does exist and has real directors and officers. Beyond that, there is some question of what is real and what is smoke and mirrors. The public record and the absence of regulation do activate one's radar. It will likely take a few more days of detailed due diligence by people on this blog to determine what is fact and what is fiction.
I have some added concern with notion that US Capital funding has 4 trillion in assets. Perhaps the following schedule of the world's fifty largest banks may shed some light on issue.
The Global Finance magazine has published its annual ranking of the World’s Biggest Banks for 2010 based on assets. BNP Paribas (BNPQY) of France tops the list with total of assets of over $2.9 Trillions.
The World’s 50 Biggest Banks 2010:
Rank Bank Country Total Assets ($b) Statement Date
1 BNP France 2,964 12/31/2009
2 Royal Bank of Scotland Group United Kingdom 2,747 12/31/2009
3 HSBC Holdings United Kingdom 2,364 12/31/2009
4 Credit Agricole France 2,243 12/31/2009
5 Barclays United Kingdom 2,233 12/31/2009
6 Bank of America United States 2,223 12/31/2009
7 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Japan 2,196* 3/31/2010
8 Deutsche Bank Germany 2,162 12/31/2009
9 JPMorgan Chase United States 2,032 12/31/2009
10 Citigroup United States 1,857 12/31/2009
11 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) China 1,726* 12/31/2009
12 ING Group Netherlands 1,676 12/31/2009
13 Lloyds Banking Group United Kingdom 1,664 12/31/2009
14 Mizuho Financial Group Japan 1,637 3/31/2010
15 Banco Santander Spain 1,600 12/31/2009
16 Groupe BPCE France 1,482 12/31/2009
17 Societe Generale France 1,475 12/31/2009
18 China Construction Bank China China 1,409* 12/31/2009
19 UniCredit Italy 1,338 12/31/2009
20 Agricultural Bank of China China 1,301** 12/31/2009
20 UBS Switzerland 1,301 12/31/2009
22 Bank of China China 1,281* 12/31/2009
23 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan 1,281 3/31/2010
24 Wells Fargo United States 1,244 12/31/2009
25 Commerzbank Germany 1,216 12/31/2009
26 HBOS United Kingdom 1,165 12/31/2009
27 Credit Suisse Group Switzerland 1,001 12/31/2009
28 Intesa Sanpaolo Italy 900 12/31/2009
29 Rabobank Group Netherlands 875 12/31/2009
30 Goldman Sachs United States 849* 12/31/2009
31 Dexia Belgium 832 12/31/2009
32 Morgan Stanley United States 772* 12/31/2009
33 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) Spain 771 12/31/2009
34 Norinchukin Japan 735* 12/31/2009
35 Nordea Bank Sweden 731 12/31/2009
36 China Development Bank China 665* 12/31/2009
37 Fortis Bank Belgium 627 12/31/2009
38 Royal Bank of Canada Canada 608 10/31/2009
39 Banque Federative du Credit Mutuel (BFCM) France 606 12/31/2009
40 Danske Bank Denmark 597 12/31/2009
41 Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Germany 593 12/31/2009
42 KfW Germany 576 12/31/2009
43 National Australia Bank Australia 576 9/30/2009
44 DZ Bank Germany 560 12/31/2009
45 Commonwealth Bank of Australia Australia 539 6/30/2010
46 Westpac Australia 519 9/30/2009
47 Hypo Real Estate Holding Germany 518 12/31/2009
48 Toronto-Dominion Bank Canada 517 10/31/2009
49 Bayerische Landesbank Germany 488 12/31/2009
50 Bank of Communications China 485* 12/31/2009
Source: Fitch Ratings except
*Standard & Poor’s
The world's largest bank, a French concern, BNP, has just shy of $ 3 trillion in assets. The largest US bank, Bank of America, comes in at $ 2.2 trillion.
Does it seem odd that a single office company called US Capital Funding has $ 4 trillion in assets yet massive world class banks have a lot less than US Capital Funding?
Better yet, it is not regulated?
Be very careful everyone.
This report was prepared before the great credit crash which followed about two months later. Most asset backed securities became junk bonds over night.
Beside, there is still a nagging unanswered question.
How can a company have its securities rated before it was incorporated?
The Georgia State said the business was incorporated on October 10th, 2008 a few months after the ratings mentioned by S & P.
I have an issue with the validity of the claim of the credit rating for the SBLC.
In searching the State of Georgia Corporations Office for US Capital Funding, I did indeed find the organization. The details are as follows:
Date: 3/19/2011 View Filed Documents
(Annual Registration History etc.)
File Annual Registration Online
or
Print A Paper Annual Registration Form
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: To download your Annual Registration forms you will need Adobe Reader to view and/or print. If you do not have Adobe Reader installed on your computer, click the "Get Adobe Reader" button on the right to download the reader free of charge from the Adobe website.
Annual Registrations
The Georgia Code only requires the Office of Secretary of State to retain annual registrations for a period of five years from the date in which it was filed. Annual registrations older than five years may no longer be available for certification or viewing on the web.
Name Name Type
U.S. CAPITAL FUNDING II SER TRST I, INC. Current Name
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
Control No.: 08078070
Status: Active/Owes Current Year AR
Entity Creation Date: 10/10/2008
Jurisdiction: GA
Principal Office Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd.
Bldg 400 Suite 300
Duluth GA 30096
Last Annual Registration Filed Date: 2/5/2010
Last Annual Registration Filed: 2010
Registered Agent
Agent Name: Jeremiah, David Isaiah
Office Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd.
Bldg 400 Suite 300
Duluth GA 30096
Agent County: Appling
Officers
Title: CEO
Name: Robert Fowler
Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd. Bldg 400 Ste 300
Duluth GA 30096
Title: CFO
Name: Tawana Pickett
Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd. Bldg 400 Ste 300
Duluth GA 30096
Title: Secretary
Name: Herman Pruden
Address: 3235 Satellite Blvd. Bldg 400 Ste 300
Duluth GA 30096
What is very evident is that US Capital Funding was formed in October 2008.
How is it possible to have a Fitch rating on debt securities before the business was formed by four years?
I checked the State banking commission which is responsible for all deposit taking facilities including banks, trust companies, bank holding companies and pre-arrange funerals. There is no apparant registration for US Capital Funding as a trust company. Likewise, there is no registration for US Capital Funding as an issuer or dealer nor is there any registration of the officers with the Georgia securities regulators.
In Canada, no one can use the word Trust in a company name unless it is registered as a trust company. You can have personal trusts created as part of a will or to benefit others but you cannot conduct business with unrelated parties. In the United States, this is not the case. You can use the word Trust in a corporate name.
Many business people get scammed by offshore (and some domestic) operators who legally use the word Trust in their corporate name. People are gullible in assuming the word Trust implies actually just that. Many a person has lost money in advanced fee scams or excessively high investment returns with entities using the words Bank or Trust in their names.
A further check on Fowler shows that he was the former president of Tawana Pickett Inc whose name is that of US Capital Funding's current CFO. That company has been dissolved.
Finally, from the Georgia state files, US Capital Funding is overdue on their annual return by a few months. A top drawer financial house would always ensure that all filings would be delivered well in advance of their due date so that they could protect their pristine reputations.
As a smaller BGMO shareholder, I believe Mr. Herzog is on the right path with energy. I am not a technical person so I will have to take it on face value that the Suntrough equipment is the best value for the almighty buck. However, with the history of false start financings reported by our leader, we need to use a proverbial grain of salt in testing the ability for the funders to deliver.
True, the press release did mention Suntrough.
However, in the absence of previous statements made by Bergamo and Suntrough, it would appear as though Suntrough is a supplier to the Indian solar energy transaction. There is no statement or objective evidence that Suntrough is now or will be a wholly or partly owned subsidiary of our company. Now, it may end up that way (I hope it does) but we need to remember what the difference is between wishful thinking and what facts that can stand up to the cold light of day.
I would suggest looking at an SEC matter regarding the founder of US Capital Finance. Apparently, in 2005, the Commission had issues with the conduct of his affairs in a similar venture also located in Georgia.
It would appear to me that no cash is sitting in the bank today. In a few weeks, may be a different story but that has been the story for a while.
"In two more weeks" is the BGMO logo.
If the news was considered bankable and solid, would not the stock pop to fifteen cents rather than down?
Between the silence on the lawsuits, the absence of audited statements for the past fews year, the avoidance of annual shareholders meeting and some questionable language around the SBLC and other press releases, there is a serious question of manner in which our business is being handled in the public arena.
Within a year, the number of outstanding shares has doubled. By looking at the trail of lawsuits, it seems to be that the BGMO modus operandi is to issue shares as collateral for a loan to finance our leaders trips abroad. The only problem with this is that when more shares are issued, the stock goes down.
As long as the shares stay around 100 or so million mark, I am a happy camper. But please, no more dilution.
What is more troubling is the way in which the financiag deals are done and they all seem to have the same result - lawsuits!
Is this a good way to run a business?
Will we wake up in two months time with another lawsuit appear for the very same reason?
Go back over the public record.
Bergamo has not issued audited financial statements with notes in years.
A good auditor would have disclosed all material lawsuits which is often followed by the management disclaimer saying the litigation is frivolous. They would conclude that should the case go against the company, it have no impact.
Without statements, this suit along with the one in Texas and IGC would never come to light unless someone was doing quality due diligence. Kudos to those who dig a little deeper.
Three lawsuits that have never been disclosed by management to the shareholders. No annual meetings either? Even Delaware corps require an annual meeting.
By issuing 2 million shares to Cohen, there is or, perhaps now, was, a definite relationship between the parties.
There could be a valid point now that Bergamo is now saying that Cohen is no longer issuing reports about Bergamo. If that is the case, the issuing of 2 million shares for the document that was circulated, raises some question as to BGMO's intention for the one-time document.
Good point.
The Cohen report says that 2 million shares were issued to him to advertise under the guise of an independent report. Either he did get the newly minted restricted stock or not.
Didn't the issued shares increase a few weeks back? Someone should check back the transfer agent O/S numbers and see if there is a jump. An alternative way is for someone to contact Cohen directly. If they both tie together it is likely the answer.
If we do find an increase of 2 million shares, it does raise some serious question as to the authorship of the email disavowing BGMO's relationship with Cohen.
Take a good look at the wording in the compensation section of the Cohen report.
Bergamo has issued 2,000,000 shares of restricted stock for this commercial advertisement and research coverage. Advertising?
Is this a good use of our scarce resources? This is one of the questions to raise at an upcoming shareholders AGM.
Oh, sorry, we don't have those. Me bad.
For the benefit of the I-Hub Board, why don't you provide copies of the summary from the free Cohen report to the Board. Please give them author credit as well as note from the report any consideration paid by BGMO to Cohen
From what I see a single home page from Bergamo Acquisition Corp (with flashing lightning) which quickly moves you over to the new Bergamo-Harbinsons website. The latter had basically the same content at the former site. What is the payoff for the work involved?
They had an announcement in the fall of 2009 followed by a more formal announcment and groundbreaking in December 2009. Greensave announced a change in the agreement in January 2010.
So, yes, there may be an agreement. Over a year old. How valid is that?
In December, we were told that big bucks
would be coming very soon. Over $ 30 million in January and over $ 40 million in the following months. This was based on money coming in from other sources and used to generate lottery like windfall profits from an investment program.
Assuming that the cash did come in and profits were made realized as announced, then, it would stand to reason that BGMO would have taken a financial position in both Suntrough and Greensave. To date, our leader has not announced any investment in those companies nor have people from those firms confirmed the receipt of money from Bergamo.
In light of the February 23rd update to investors, it appears as though the cash is not in the bank yet. Soon, but not right this minute. If this is correct, then, it follows that Suntrough and Greensave have not yet received anything.
What I suspect has happened based on earlier Greensave reports, they had a deal with HH from late 2009 that publicly announced. It was suggested that a following change to the agreement was made for the Patriot Act. Has there been anything since? They are not talking.
As for Suntrough, they have not said anything. Was there ever a reported deal with them? If so, it is long since stale. Has anyone heard of any recent equity deal between Suntrough and our firm. My guess is not. The only thing that could make sense is a earn in deal based on installed equipment sales.
IMO, the links to both Suntrough and Greensave could be misleading investors suggesting an ownership arrangement exists when none has been reported. Isn't there and SEC issue here?
This is big news if BGMO actually controls these companies so it should not be withheld from we shareholders.
We need to remember our past.
The last time the BGMO web site went down was when HH failed to pay a judgment in Texas. The sheriff seized the site and placed a hold on the BGMO bank accounts. Could this be happening again? It is in the realm of possibility since bloggers have reported the ICG lawsuit.
So, if we assume that this is not the case, most companies would take the old material off the website and load up the new stuff in all about an hour. This is not happening. Why? My guess is that there is no money to pay a third party to do the task in a quality way. This would mean that it is likely being done in-house.
Merely refreshing a web presence does not mean great news. A good web site undergoes a major refreshing every two years using new graphics and typically a better investor oriented layout.
It would be more correct to say that when HH has the proof, he will release it. That is my understanding of what he said earlier in the week. The proof could be in a few days or weeks IMHO.
At this moment in time and based on his previous statements on financing, the absence of publicized proof suggests that it is not quite here yet. By HH's own words, he would release it to satisfy the No Way Is It Going To Happen people. Given the thrashing that HH has taken on his reputation as evidenced by the blogs and the collapse of the share price, if I were HH and had the proof in my pocket now, I would be shouting it out from the tallest building saying "I told you so".
I prefer to be a little more pragmatic in what some bloggers and the Co. have to say. There is a little of the Show Me state in my way of thinking.
I am long BGMO but I do not have a big holding.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if you have the money, you can show them some third party proof such a passbook or an account statement even today? Personally, I can go online an show proof of my bank and investments on a daily basis. You can probably do the same with you own online banking too.
Business people can do that too.
The mere fact of saying that they are anticipating a formal confirmation that will come shortly suggests a future event rather than something concrete in the present. I am not saying that it is not coming but rather it is not here yet.
It is like saying the check is in the mail.
The check can be very real but it is not in your bank yet. You cannot spend or invest what you don't have.
Didn't our fearless leader say...
in December that he has the money.
He even issued financial statements saying that the majority of the funds were in an investment account which would pay out over $ 30 million in January and over $ 40 million per month for the following three months.
Earlier this week, Bergamo released a statement saying, in effect, well the money is not in the bank yet. With their own words, BGMO does not have the money. YET.
I am not saying that BGMO will not get the money but rather the money is not here now. It follows that the money when received would be placed in the investment account to earn some astronomical profits to buy Suntrough, Greensave and so forth. This could be a few months out yet I guess.
I am sure that if the money was truly in the door and sitting in a bank account, our leader would have the document certified by a notary and blown up to a poster sized document (like the Greensave check) for all to see. Didn't I read that HH would do exactly that.
If I had the proof now wouldn't I want to show the doomsayers that HH was right all along. If you were in his shoes, you would show the legitimate proof proudly unless you were trying to corner the free float.
If Hillard is going back to India...
we may see some more word on the money that was supposed to be flowing for new acquisitions about two months ago.
Does this mean that the money for the high yielding investment account has not yet been churning out a million bucks per day as Bergamo told us? Will this start happening in the second quarter?
Now, what about that audit thing?
Will the auditor now have to remove the "funds on deposit" in the investment account as they are not yet there?
My guess the audit could be another two or three months away. Not because it is complicated. More on the side of finding out what is real through legitimate third party proof.
In going over the older Greensave news stories, they have ordered the equipment for three plants last spring for delivery starting in late 2010.
Are you aware of any purchases of any land? Can you tell me where the buildings have been built? Where was the equipment delivered?
So far, that company has not lived up to its statements. I suspect that it is related to our promises at BGMO in acquiring them and Suntrough over a year ago.
The company said that they were looking at three areas which I believe were somewhere in Manitoba, Fort Erie and Maine. Can you tell me were the fourth plant would be?
All I was pointing out was Greensave's choice at Fort Erie could be in doubt given the fact that pre-existing competitors have added enough capacity to take all of the market within a few hundred mile radius of that burg.
I agree that the industry makes sense. Just questioning the merit for still looking at Fort Erie. They may just need to put that plant elsewhere.
Who knows what they are doing.
They have not told anyone anything in nearly five months. Our travelling leader, HH, has said nothing about Greensave in several months either.
With the changes in the market in a big way, it raises good questions for the BGMO investors. Is our investment or potential investment (we dont know what the status is) in Greensave being protected?
As for throwing away money, could be our own? Could be the governments. Could be their own investment? Who knows. As long as HH is protecting ours, I dont really care.
Not a clue.
Their web site has gone cold with no news since October.
We all saw the ultra quiet major shakeup in the top management. Very puzzling.
Both Greensafe and BGMO have said nothing. Could mean something. May not also.
Just waiting on the money for solar news to make my day.
According to GreenSafe's own words, they do have an ability to bring in from reasonable distance. However, it does stand to reason that the farther it comes in the less valuable it becomes.
It also stands to reason that other firms like ARCA can place modern plants closer to the population centers. Between ARCA and a few others, they already have close to three dozen plants that handle fridges. With the ARCA story of GE on their side and modern equipment, is GreenSafe too late?
Why would a utility company move volumes from say NYC to Fort Erie when an ARCA plant is closer? Why would people in Toronto move used fridges and e-waste to Fort Erie when they have two plants within minutes of their front door?
Fort Erie does have rail and a highway I grant you. Don't know about a port.
As for Detroit, have you been there lately? The car industry is dead in that city. They moved away.
I think what markettimer144 is getting the board to consider if if the big known and established players (ARCA and GE) in the area have added to their capacity enough to consume the potential market what does it leave for Greensfae to capture? What can Greensafe offer to the market that the entrenched guys can't do?
According to the ARCA story, their new plant will get the CFC's from the foam. Isn't that what Greensafe is supposed to be doing after we fund them? If they already have a supply from a big player on the US side and a plant on the Canadian side, should that not be a warning sign.
My gut tells me that a plant in Fort Erie no longer makes any sense. Can they get enough volume to breakeven in that town?
The right business concept just in the wrong market. IMHO
Do they have any contracts for processing? Do they have any money from BGMO yet? They haven't reported anything yet. If I were trying to establish credibility I sure wood want to announce it.
The delay in the BGMO money likely caused Greensafe some harm.
I like the Indian solar play at BGMO. More upfront potential there. Come on HH - you promised tens of millions in January and February. Time to show us the really big piles of cash.
Financial statements for Bergamo?
There are three basic types of financial statements the most rigourous being audited statement. Has anyone on the I-Hub board actually gone through a full audit for a year end of a public company?
Typical questions like show me your previous statements, your internal statements, your written accounting policies, your journals and ledgers and so on will come forward? Are there real ledgers on which do prepare internal statements?
Bergamo will need to disclose all of the legal issues with ICG. Based on based history (the Texas suit), an independent auditor may have some challenges in saying there is no need for a provision on the books.
What about the issue of the foreign subsidiaries to consolidate? What about the matter of the sales contracts for which BGMO received a fee? Should this be treated as a one time income or spread over the life of power contracts or the construction?
Okay, I did own a small shop once and know a little accounting. If I can come up with questions like this, I can imagine the auditors having a picnic with Hillard. If BGMO proposed a January 2011 year end, I guess the statements, if they are actually independently audited, would be out in May. It will just take that long to get all of the third party proof of what is said is real. We all know the story there.
As for the ICG lawsuit, even if BGMO had the money, past history says sue me first, get the judgement and when you are about to freeze my bank accounts, then, we will pay. So, does BGMO have the money? My gut says no based solely on past performance.
Comparing apples to oranges?
The GreenSafe site says that it will handle everything from soup to nuts (er, fridges to e-waste). If the competition has opened a plant in the biggest market in Canada for e-waste and another competitor in the US for fridges and more, shouldn't that be a concern to an investor. They will be on the ground running for at least a year before our investment handles its first Frigidaire.
The only saving grace will be India my friends.
There is trouble out there!
I saw this on the Ottawa news earlier today.
SIMS Recycling Solutions opened their new plant in Mississauga, Ontario today. They expect the plant will handle about 50% of Canada's e-waste recycling volumes. The Minister of the Environment threw the switch powering the line this afternoon.
I found a more detailed story as follows:
Sims Recycling Solutions Canada is excited to announce the introduction of its newest electronics recycling facility, located in Mississauga, Ontario. The 287,000 square foot facility is home to the most advanced technology that Sims Recycling Solutions has to offer for the recycling of end of life electronics, also known as waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE) or e-waste.
The three-phase project included a fully mechanized cathode ray tube (CRT) recycling process that yields commodity grades of leaded and non-leaded glass from monitors and televisions; better metals recycling technologies; and the newest plastic separation technology allowing for closed loop recycling of plastics. The net result of this multi-million dollar investment provides higher recycling rates while maintaining the strict environmental and safety standards most commonly associated with Sims Recycling Solutions. "The economies of scale, security, environmental performance and associated low carbon footprint of this single process will offer our customers better value and peace of mind for their recycling requirements," says Cindy Coutts, President of Sims Recycling Solutions Canada.
"Ontario, home to 39% of the Canadian population, is the latest province to mandate WEEE recycling. The volume of WEEE requiring processing in Ontario alone has increased from a stricly voluntary market to over 42,000 metric tonnes per year forecast driven by regulation" says Coutts. "The investment by Sims Recycling Solutions into both new recycling technology and facilities provides evidence of the company's commitment to continuously developing better green technology and more green jobs in Canada."
With a receiving capacity in excess of 100,000 mt per year, the new site will provide electronics recycling services to residential consumers, businesses, governments and provincial programs throughout Canada. The facility is set to begin processing this month.
Sims Recycling Solutions' leadership in the environmentally sound recycling of end-of-life electronics provides cost effective recycling solutions that focus on industry leading recycling standards. The Canadian operation is currently ISO 14001:2004, OHSAS 18001:2007, RCMP and Controlled Goods Approved, EPSC RVQP and Responsible Recycling (R2) Practices certified.
Over the last 5 years, Sims Recycling Solutions Canada has recycled over 85 million pounds of electronic scrap in Ontario alone and over 880 million pounds globally in 2010 to some of the highest global standards.
So, owning some BGMO stock, I am starting to get worried that the ship may have sailed on the GreenSafe acquisition.
Between this new plant which is part of a big outfit and with ARCA's new partnering with GE announced, how fast can GreenSafe move and still make a buck.
I guess we will make our money on Indian solar power plants.
Big news from Appliance Recycling Centers of America
They announced a BIG deal with GE for the supply of dead appliances for processing by ARCA's new plant in PA. In reading their press release, they will capture the gases from the foam. Isn't this something that GreenSafe was planning to do?
ARCA already has a plant in Canada. I wonder if they will put a new line in their existing building? Their annual report says that the Canadian plant is in Oakville just outside of Toronto.
Is GreenSafe too late in Canada or in America?
Didn't I read that GreenSafe said this afternoon they have no money from Hillard yet?
How do they expect to compete if they have no money, and the competition already has modern equipment in the US and could have it in Canada quicker than GreenSafe could?
What about this GE supply contract to ARCA. That takes a lot of the collection problems away. A big client and logistics already in place.
Are we backing the wrong horse in GreenSafe? Maybe we should buy ARCA?