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.
"Well yeah, but no disclosure the agreement to sell occurred in 2008. Only lately did Cate confirm it was 2008. Never in 08 did the company say they had agreed to sell their stake, with a initial milestone payment, and a subsequent final payment for their project management services to follow."
Where did you get this DD from? Cyr confirmed that we sold our equity interest in Sept of 2010. It was made known to us in Aug of 2010 through the amended organizational structure located in the EFSEC docket.
Page 2, 5th para down:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/261948/energy-companys-trading-suspended?page=0,1&CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1
"I also invite you to remember what was subsequently posted on this forum in 2009, and as late as 2010. The individual investor was posting about million$ of yearly revenue. You had threads trying to add revenue from Berlin, on top of other sites. Then would follow proclamations the stock was going to 0.10 very soon or some other moon prediction."
Your kidding, right? I would hope that all of us here understand one of the foundational rules of investing. Everyone is responsible for their own investment. Perform your own due diligence. The threads here and each individual investors posts cannot be blamed for anothers decision to invest here. Take EVERYTHING posted on msg boards with a grain of salt and verify the info through your own DD to make an educated investment decision.
"That was all perception generated by LLEG management."
No, actually, that was the perception generated by all of the speculation over the years here. What we have from the company are official PR's and hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents relating to the dockets before the state of New Hampshire. One docket with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and 2 dockets with the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee (EFSEC). One thing I do admit is that we found out a lot of key info related to our investment through these dockets and not from PR's released by the company, i.e., the breakdown of the capital structure. I am with you to say that this was frustrating at times.
"We had to wait until very recently to find out they were working it as a pure project having agreed to sell their stake in 2008"
In hindsight, looking back at the original EFSEC application and the dockets mentioned above, coupled with the PR's released by LLEG, it was never said that this project was all theirs and that they would own it. Besides, when you read though the docket and realize the magnitude of this project, common sense should have told you that Laidlaw wouldn't own this project. So the organizational structure that was divulged in the original app shouldn't have been that surprising to anyone. Most of the financial backing was put up my outside investors, which ordinarily means that those original investors will see the most return. We were the catalysts behind this project and will be duly compensated for that I believe. A stepping stone so to speak. And we sold our equity stake to Newco last year, 2010, not 2008. That was divulged in Aug of 2010 through the amendment order of the structural organization located in the EFSEC docket.
"What they have said about Susanville is also entirely consistent with that being another project where the end result will be a buyout of their assets, plus a management fee."
With Susanville, the PR states we will the 100% equity holder. Never mentioned with Berlin. BTW, being the 100% equity holder could change too. So, in that sense, you are correct. We might sell our 100% equity interest and move on to another project. All speculation on my behalf.
"What is clear is that back in 07 LLEG management never stated they would have no ownership in the project after it came online."
True. But they never said they'd own the plant either.
This was the known terms of the acquisition:
The Facility is currently owned by North American Dismantling Corporation (“NAD”), which purchased the Facility from the Fraser Paper Company in May 2006. NAD has demolished all of the buildings and assets not associated with the biomass conversion and sold any scrap steel. NAD and Laidlaw have executed an asset Purchase agreement whereby Laidlaw will purchase the remaining assets and approximately 50% of the land.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080612124501/http://laidlawenergy.com/berlin-nh-project.html
Agreed. But serious is subjective. I feel that the issues I mentioned would be deemed serious. Not only by me but also by the SEC.
I wouldn't say that having 2 projects on your website as current or future projects disappear isn't serious. Kinda alters one's business model a little, no? And the capitalization details being outdated by a couple years, I think that could be deemed serious. And even the blog, I'm sure it was a little bit mote than the pic of Barty crossing the finish line. All could be considered serious IMO. And misleading to potential investors.
There are plenty of things that longs here have taken up with the way Laidlaw does things. Overall though, I, like many other investors here, believe in this company and what it has accomplished in the past several years. We will get past this, be it months or years.
"The suggestion was made a few changes to the website constitutes a major addressing of the SEC issues."
I never suggested such a thing. In the words of another LLEG friend that has started posting here since the 7th, surely you jest....
I was trying to help people see that these SEC issues are vague & we have no idea of the specifics. I speculated how certain things have been updated on the Laidlaw site & how these changes could simply fall under the general SEC issues. I didn't mention whether they are major or minor and I surely don't know if these cover the SEC issues. Nothing to do but wait it out, be it weeks, months, or years.
Btw, I like your profile. Tells me more than what any post of yours can say. Good luck.
My speculation was just that, speculation, and some sarcasm. Would you like me to answer all your specultative hypotheticals with more speculative answers. No thanks. I'll decline.
Guess they're not done gathering their thoughts. Or maybe their just having a rough time covering up this fraudulent cover-up. Don't know. You can play the speculative game with many here. Good luck.
"why are you ignoring the SEC?"
I don't think anyone is ignoring the SEC. The only FACT that we have is that statement by the SEC, which is extremely vague. A wide gamut of issues can potentially fall under each one of those SEC issues. What we do know, which is FACT, is that several things on the website were changed in the last couple days. In addition, an entire blog of Barty's thoughts, including subliminal hints at future good news in relation to the stock was taken down.
So let's look at these vague SEC questions, which might I add, are just questions at this point. Laidlaw HAS NOT been charged with anything at this point. And depending on the severity of the issues that fall under the SEC questions at hand, Barty could be telling the truth, and I stress the word could, by saying that these are misunderstandings.
So here's the SEC statement:
"Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s operations, the accuracy of its financial statements, and stock promoting activity by the company."
Adequacy & accuracy of press releases: when the website was updated, 2 of the Laidlaw projects under the current or future projects heading were entirely deleted. These 2 projects were mentioned in press releases. Maybe they don't even exist. Who knows? But this update can take care of that.
Accuracy of financial statements: the capitalization details of Laidlaw was entirely updated on the website. Some of which wasn't included on the financial statements. This could take care of that.
Stock promoting by the company: Have you read through that entire blog? Or even some of Mike's posts here. Well, the blog is gone & Barty hasn't posted here. This can take care of that issue.
I stress that this is all speculation on my part so you can save your rebuttal post italicizing & analyzing my every thought. It might also be true, that most of Mikey's plants he imagined in a dream, the financials were doctored up by his son who's in college getting his accounting degree, and he's personally paid diluted stock money to shamefully promote his company. And all the posters that have pumped LLEG within the last 5 years was really him posting under numerous aliases.
Who Knows!??
No one. Most of the longs here know what we have invested in. All the experts here in the grey market will not sway our opinions of Laidlaw. It's just a waiting game at this point.
Tick tock tick tock
What share? We are gone. Sold our equity interest. Good-bye Berlin. 2 mil & change on the initial sale with Newco. Now waiting to find out our subsequent payment with closing of the construction financing. And also how we will be compensated for our mgmt services.
It is possible that the less profitable this project is, our subsequent payment could be less than what some around here have projected to be.
Who knows? Waiting game at this point. Tick tock tick tock
Mr. Dog, which stock are you referring to?
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, Laidlaw will become the 100% equity holder of Susanville but the PR also states that Renergy & Nature Energies, whose parent is Hanalei Renewables, a successful French renewable energy company, will both become equity holders in LLEG, through the issuance of a new class of preferred shares.
I inquired about these preferred shares yesterday, via an email to Mike, because I didn't see them included in the updated capitalization on the website.
This was Mike's response:
They haven't been issued yet which is why they don't appear on the web site as of yet. When they are issued we will update the web site.
Generally speaking the newly issued preferred shares would be subject to the standard six month restriction on resale associated with Rule 144 and we have also put in place a "dribble out" clause, so if they do decide to sell at some point they are limited to the amount they can sell in a given period of time. Provisions like that are generally incorporated into transactions with a view of safeguarding existing shareholders by minimizing the impact to the share price if there is a sale.
It is also worth noting that it is expected that these people are going to be our business partners, so we certainly hope it is their intention to hold onto their shares for a while. I understand your concern, but it is not our expectation at all that the shares are going to be adding any selling pressure to the market any time soon.
"Secondly, The PR specifically states the sellers become equity holders. That is not just dividends. They have a piece of the company. So current shareholders get diluted. But, if a smaller piece of the pie results in increase revenues per share compared to what we have now, it is a good thing."
Agreed. These preferred shares are convertible. We just have to find out the stipulations of these preferred shares. The shares have not been issued yet, which is why this info can't be found on the updated website.
Yup, agreed. I see that the current or future projects dropped from 4 to 2. The 2 are New Bedford & Susanville. All good. I like the changes.
" gl with that because there will be no one to buy those shares."
Surely you jest, lol. If the price drops as low as I anticIpate, my partners & I surely will be buying up some more.
Agreed. Just sharing the updated info, as of today, taken directly form the website. We'll have to wait to find out the details of those preferred shares.
Updated Capitalization Info On Laidlaw Website
Capitalization
Common Shares Outstanding: 2,456,721,088 as of 6/14/11
Common Shares Authorized: 3 billion as of 6/14/11
Primary Market Capitalization: Approximately $13 Million based on our last trade of $.0052 on 6/6/11. Please note that this figure includes only common shares issued and outstanding and is subject to change on a daily basis depending on the prevailing share price.
Float: The majority of common shares are held by non-insiders. Management's ownership is primarily comprised of preferred shares, however management also owns approximately 165 million common shares and 95 million options to purchase common shares.
Other Equity Securities Outstanding: 10 million Series A convertible preferred shares held by management. These shares afford management with a 60% majority voting control over all matters requiring a shareholder vote. The Company also currently has stock options outstanding issued to management representing 95 million shares.
Debt Securities Outstanding: As of 6/14/11, the Company presently has no debt securities outstanding.
Insider Ownership: Taking into account all classes of equity securities, management currently owns approximately 70% of the Company's equity securities on a fully diluted basis.
Link: http://www.laidlawenergy.com/Investors
"why would LLEG not issue a formal statement via a PR?
it is their duty to their shareholders to do so, especially before trading on the Grey Sheets begins."
Not sure. Not in Barty's head. I could conjure up a couple scenarios but I think that's pointless. Just have to wait and see.
I don't think it's necessarily "their duty" to make sure a PR is released before trading on the grey mkt begins. Will take a PR of action & substance over general fluff anyday. To each their own.
"it has been a week and still no formal statement."
Ok, and you bring this up to say what? That for you, soon is past due?
Soon is subjective. Still would qualify as soon for me if that PR comes this week. And even if doesn't, I'll disregard the delay for a PR of substance.
"or they may not, hence the problem."
Agreed. Time will tell....
"the very questions the SEC has is regarding the fundamentals of LLEG..."
That wasn't the original question at hand that you were trying to refute. Someone mentioned that Laidlaw is a company that has money in the bank. You said, "or are they?", using the questions by the SEC to support you questioning whether they really do have money in the bank. I'm here to tell you that the SEC questions at hand might have absolutely nothing to do whether or not Laidlaw has money in the bank. Furthermore, they very well could have money in the bank, despite the SEC questioning the accuracy of their financial statements.
"And just because LLEG have PR'ed unaudited and error-strewn financial statements that show a positive cash balance, doesn't mean that they really do have money in the bank."
Correct, and likewise, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have money in the bank.
"In reality, the fact that LLEG's CEO, Mr. Bartoszek has strenuously avoided issuing audited statements creates the suspicion that perhaps any revenue accruing to LLEG has mysteriously disappeared."
This seems to be your reality. I do not think he has "strenuously avoided" issuing audited statements and and that suspicion is not part of my reality
"or are they?
"Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc. is a New York corporation based in New York. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s operations, the accuracy of its financial statements, and stock promoting activity by the company."
Just because these questions by the SEC have arisen, doesn't mean that they aren't a company that has money in the bank.
"certainly no one is in a position to state definitively and categorically that it will."
Correct, and likewise, no one is in a position to state definitively and categorically that it won't
"And it seems worth remembering too, that of the 17 companies suspended last week, only LLEG had all three grounds for suspension quoted against it:
"Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc. is a New York corporation based in New York. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s operations, the accuracy of its financial statements, and stock promoting activity by the company."
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612-o.pdf
Most of the others had two; three or four had two. LLEG was unique in having all three."
Being charged with 3 offenses, opposed to 1, doesn't determine the severity of those offenses. In addition, the uniqueness of the situation doesn't necessarily correlate with the severity of the offenses. These accusations are vague. Wait for details.
"that is just a random number but it doesn't really matter."
You are right. It doesn't matter. All just a number. No loss until you sell. Whether it drops 20% 0r 200%, it doesn't really matter. Just a matter of time before all is well again. Be it 2 months or 2 years, LLEG will see the pinks again and then some.
In the meantime, enjoy the circus...
More than just having a google acct, once you login, message says :
This blog is open to invited readers only
It doesn't look like you have been invited to read this blog. If you think this is a mistake, you might want to contact the blog author and request an invitation.
No, he's right. Laidlaw doesn't own Ellicottville.
Barty's statement is still correct though. He said "his firm is still involved with the proposed power plant". He never said anything about owning it, the plant was proposed, never a reality, and with the ongoing litigation, he's still involved. Just not in the way it was depicted through the website, before it was removed, which is what the SEC's problem probably was.
Barty guilty of not being on top of his website & having outdated content: Yes
Barty deliberately leaving outdated content on his website in order to scam potential investors into thinking that we own more than we really do, hoping that the scam can pump the pps: No
Here the misunderstanding lies. More of a momo move, probably being bogged down with so many different tasks at the moment and not even thinking about the details on his site. I remember before the site was updated to give it a more modern, clean feel, the site wasn't touched or updated for what had to be at least a year. Outdated info, no updates.
Btw, here is the deed info for Ellicottville, click on owner info in left hand column to see current owners:
http://maps.cattco.org/Imate/propdetail.aspx?swis=043689&printkey=04600400010430050000
History of the deed says that Laidlaw never owned Ellicottville. It was transferred or leased to them at one point:
http://maps.cattco.org/Imate/quickstream.aspx?file=VOLLOCAL/T000065/043689046004000104300500000001.tif
Agreed. And sometimes it entails friends from different sectors or firms cozying up over filet mignon at a nice NYC steakhouse to discuss the allegations and how to rectify them.
...Joking, btw
I actually do not think they're blind. Some of them might even be accurate.
Like the example of the Ellicottville pic or descript on their site. Totally wrong. Or even their initial handling of Berlin to investors. We found out about the structural changes in ownership through a revised order to the EFSEC. Initially, I was under the assumption that Berlin was all ours. Then once the initial EFSEC application was filed, I found out that our percentage dwindled to like 33%. Then the revised order was filed, even confusing our ownership role even more. Then a final revised ownership structure was filed under the new docket that made it clear that LLEG wasn't staying in Berlin. These changes weren't PR'ed to us and we still do not know what our payments were or forthcoming, Only that we were given an initial pymt when Newco took over, and then we have received or will receive another payment once construction commences. Yet, when you read their website, or even looked at the i-box here, you'd think that we would have a bigger role in the Berlin plant than we currently do. That fulfills 2 of the SEC's broad accusations. They obviously narrowed it down to 5 specific things that they had questions about and felt were misleading or deceiving to new potential investors.
Do I think that Barty and friends purposely did this to deceive new investors, hoping to inflate the PPS?
Absolutely not. And if that was their original motivation, they failed miserably at it. I think they were walking a fine line, like 99.5% of the OTC companies out there. They got swooped up in the investigation, due to being tipped off by people who have been rooting for this company to fail for years. Mike's communication with his shareholders, be it through the website or PR's, have never been his strong point, as most longs here can attest to. LLEG will not just lay down and cease to exist because of this. It will be a long fight to even get back to the pinks but I still think they will recover eventually.
"vaguely that the SEC is interested in "five things"."
As of Wed, Barty and his lawyers didn't have the details of the accusations. They most likely just found those details out yesterday. No sense revealing what those 5 things are unless they have detailed responses. Just revealing those "5 things" would have created rampant speculation. His attorneys are most likely working on a detailed response as of now to those 5 things. That's what needs to be PR'd.
"Knowing that reporters can and do get things wrong, he was taking a risk"
Yeah, that could be true. Or the interview could have been dictated. Controlled responses. It's not like he interviewed with Chris Jensen, a well-known LLEG hata. Look who interviewed him, "Monitor Staff". SEC suspension or not, Barty and friends are well-connected in North Country now.
"Companies in this situation are not going to sit down and have a cozy chat with the SEC"
Maybe not, but I doubt they're mortal enemies. That is, their attorneys. If they still have the same legal team, Herrick, Feinstein LLP. Very respected law firm here in NYC with extensive experience in regards to Securities Law.
"Some suspended companies choose not to comment at all; others say something like: "We're cooperating fully with the SEC, and hope to resolve this matter as quickly as possible"
According to many of the experts here in the grey market, 99.5% of those suspended companies stay in the land of Hades, never to recover. So we are not really concerned how those "other" companies handle a suspension.
It doesn't matter how LLEG responds, most (longs and grey mkt experts) will stand their ground to the very end until ultimately, their fate is sealed. That sealing hasn't taken place as of yet.
A couple of reasons......
1. Have you read the article in the Concord Monitor? He didn't give much details. Pretty much said what those
who inquired & posted here have already said. Big misunderstanding. He's already denied the allegations
via twitter. What's he going to release, a generic PR stating that this was a misunderstanding, they stand
by their PR's and financials, and will be responding to the SEC to address the issues through their
lawyers? Those of us who've been here for years know that he's doing that. The best PR Mike could
release right now would involve action. I.E., here are the SEC issues, these are our responses. We are
waiting for the SEC's response. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to get out of the greys.
And if that step has already been taken, the details of that should in the PR too.
2. Also, there has already been negative exposure in the NH media connecting the LLEG drama with the
construction of the biggest biomass plant in the New England area. It's obvious that their stake in this is
minimal at this point. This approval process isn't finished yet. No sense of jeopardizing the entire project.
Especially being that the only thing we are waiting on, which was actually news even to us longs, was
another payment once construction commences. We all figured there'd be another payment coming once
this was fully approved, we just didn't know it was upon construction. And we still do not know how much
that payment will be. Part of the NDA. So Mike decided to do an interview with the Concord Monitor, the
largest media exposure we can get up in NH. Also where the PUC is based, which approval of the revised
PPA we are awaiting, which would be the last piece if this puzzle, before construction can begin. The
people of NH & agencies up there aren't waiting for a PR. But they do read the paper. It has been stated
by both Cate St & Barty now that LLEG, Laidlaw Energy Group, is not connected to Berlin anymore. This
project will move forward & Biomass in Berlin is happening. Which will be the best thing for us, because our
construction pymt depends on it.
Nothing to do but to wait it out here for Barty's formal response to the SEC. I do find it interesting though that out of the 17 suspended stocks, LLEG remained on the top 10 active read boards all week. In addition, a couple more people have added it to their "favorite stocks" & the boardmarks have increased back to the 540 range. Before the suspension, we were sitting at 529 boardmarks. Not many running for the hills just yet & plenty of people keeping their eye on how this pans out. Their is an allegiance here amongst the longs because we have been here long enough to see that this is not a traditional pink. And its definitely not a P&D. I've been a part if plenty of those, trading for profits & suffering tremendous losses. If anyone can be apart of that 1% that gets out of the grey deathpit, it will be LLEG.
Delaware
Ed Myers is anything but a glorified receptionist. And I'm sure he is in the know of any insider info, be it good or bad. Myers has plenty of Wall St experience and has been here since the company's beginning. Myers actually worked at Barty's boutique firm even before Laidlaw was formed.
To pull the wool over everyones eyes, the EFSEC, the PUC, the ISO-NE, the mayor of Berlin, the Governor of NH, all the lawyers involved, the financiers, the opposition, & us, the investors, would definitely be SPNG status. Truly the "smartest guys in the room" move. Only the PPS never ballooned, and we've been trading in the same range for months. And under a penny for years.
And they even have the gall to return investors phone calls after being suspended! The nerve....
Yeah, after his sons ratted him out.
Out of curiosity, for all our grey market experts that have surfaced here this week....
Exactly how does trading on the grey mkt work, if we were to get to that point?
I understand that no one can see the bid/ask. So you can't put limit prices on a sell order either? What do you do? Just place a mkt sell order, and then then the broker will look for the highest mkt buy order and sell your shares to that buyer? So if the highest buy price to match my sale is .0001, then that is what the sale will be executed at? And then we can't see the sales til the end of the day?
Anyone shed some light on this?
I have not thrown in the white flag here just yet.
I think it's still possible to get back to the pinks fairly quickly after a brief stint on the greys. Providing the SEC with whatever they need to remedy the accusations is the 1st step.
With all of Mike and Ed's Wall St. experience, I'm sure they can find some broker-dealers to fill out the form 211 and verify their financial and business records, to start trading again. Not that difficult.
It's just that the stats are against us. 99% of stocks suspended BY THE SEC stay in the grey deathpit, sinking down to .0001 to never trade again.
Question remains, will LLEG set precedent here and prove that its a legitimate company by making it back from the dead. Time will tell.
Time to show those ACES you are holding there buddy....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55082488
Anyone know if the LLEG OTC page has been updated in the last day or 2?
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/LLEG/company-info
Besides the obvious caveat emptor label...
I can't remember if the share structure was that detailed before.
It also lists the financials as Audited.
Any thoughts?
He served as interim CEO during the firm’s bankruptcy and liquidation.
That organizational chart is totally outdated. It was the original chart in the initial application to the SEC. That chart has changed twice since then. Once in August of last year, within the Amendments to Application and Pre-Filed Testimonies, dated Aug 16, 2010, located in the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower docket, and then again, under the new Berlin Station LLC Docket, Exhibit 5 - Revised Corporate Structure, dated March 9, 2011.
Yeah, also spoke with Ed this morning. He called me & we had a 10 min conversation. He told they were blindsided. He actually said they were waiting for a good week this week, in anticipation of the revised ppa being accepted. He told me that him & Laidlaw thought that everything they were doing was up to par with the SEC. He said their lawyers have been assembled and have been working on it since Mon afternoon.
I told him how pis*ed I was at the mgmt of Laidlaw for the lack of transparency for past developments. Ellicotville, joint venture with homeland that was the catalyst for our 1st run-up, which disappeared into thin air with the structuring changes in the EFSEC order released last Aug. I told him that I understood the lack of disclosure regarding Berlin if that is what was called for between them & Cate St.
I told him that our pps will take a major hit but the damage could be buffered by swift action that is publicly disclosed. Informed him that WE, the shareholders, ARE Laidlaw, & that we wouldn't have progressed this far if not for the steady dilution that was taking place in 09.
Not much he could disclose to me. Just listened. Said they are doing everything they can to rectify this disaster. Is what it is. This is where we are at.
I do want to mention that the ibox should be change to reflect current facts that we know of. And anything that has been verified not to be accurate should be, should be deleted. I mentioned this last year & was ignored. Like once the new structural chart came out in the EFSEC order last Aug, the outdated structural chart from the original EFSEC application should have been deleted. Misleading to new investors. Other things in the ibox that are outdated.