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.
Did you get an update on the CTO?
Do they not have a landline?
I thought that small public companies with less than $75 million in market capitalization were exempt from Sarbanes Oxley section 404(b). Did the post you saw provide a source?
Thanks, if you have a chance to post a link sometime, that would be great!
Thanks. I was not aware that a Form 10 filing resulted in a mandatory quiet period (S-1, yes, but Form 10, no). It guess it makes sense with an S-1, but I am not sure why it makes sense with a Form 10 if the securities are already trading? Does anyone have a link to the law?
Thanks. Is the quiet period required when filing a Form 10 registration as opposed to an S-1 registration? Or Is the company doing some sort of voluntary quiet period?
Why is the company in a quiet period?
What is the deadline for them to appeal the CTO and come into compliance?
Who did they submit it to and what is "final acceptance"? Doesn't the SEC's EDGAR system use XBRL, so that all they do is upload the completed form and then it's immediately available on EDGAR? If I recall correctly, "final acceptance" occurs 60 days after filing, but submission is immediate and we should be able to see it. But I checked EDGAR, and I do not see it.
It is certainly possible. Either way it is disconcerting that they did not respond to the two "final notices" before the temporary Cease Trade Order was issued, and then did not respond to the temporary CTO. I can understand a plan to economize, but why risk negatively impacting shareholders?
Here is why they must file in Canada.
In 2012, all Canadian provinces except Ontario adopted a new securities reporting rule called Multilateral Instrument 51-105. MI 51-105 is meant to increase the disclosure standards of U.S. OTC companies in Canada to the same disclosure standards of other, non-OTC Canadian reporting companies. The goals are more transparency and discouraging Canada's role in the creation of shell companies and pump and dump schemes.
One of the things that triggers MI 51-105 is having headquarters in a Canadian province, so it applies to GCEI with its Montreal, Quebec operational headquarters.
The disclosure requirements of MI 51-105 seem to be above and beyond what is required of the OTC markets. For example, it appears that it requires full and timely disclosure of insider stock transactions, as well as "current report" filings similar to the U.S. Form 8-K. It also seems to impose some limitations on distributing stock to insiders and others in exchange for services.
Here is a link to the rule: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/235_2012 (This is British Columbia's version, but I believe it is substantially the same as Quebec's, and it's in English instead of French!).
Here's a helpful synopsis of the rule: http://www.venturelawcorp.com/examining_mi_51_105.html
Can someone post a link to the Canadian filing when it becomes available?
I am not trying to be glib--but I have no idea what you are getting at.
I understand your point, but I do not believe it is relevant. Focusing only on the home run success stories is a significant hindsight bias that ignores the much greater chance of failure than success (and even then, success is usually mild). It is also a false equivalency because Bill Gates and Microsoft actually had patents and were venture funded from almost go. Microsoft also took 11 years from founding until an IPO, including a significant incubation stage.
Perhaps a better comparison would be other, more recent renewable energy companies and markets. What is the base rate of success for start up renewable energy companies in the U.S.?
Thanks. I saw those previously, but I am not sure what to make of them. Do we have any independently published information on management's experience?
For example, Mr, Azimov's bio says he "assumed a leadership role" in Mamma.com and then talks about how Mamma.com sold for at a high valuation. What is meant by "leadership role"? What did Mr. Azimov contribute to the success of Mamma.com? I am having trouble finding any independently verifiable information on his role and the value created.
Similarly, I cannot find much information about Mr. Adessky except what GCEI has published or the legal proceedings he is involved in Quebec.
I see that Mr. Levine worked at WindTronics, but it looks like WindTronics failed to get the necessary capital to move forward with operations (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windtronics-leaves-windsor-takes-away-200-promised-jobs-1.1214184).
Any insight you have is greatly appreciated.
I am worried that management lacks focus. From reading older press releases and filings, they spent the first several years of their existence allegedly developing internal, proprietary technology (owned patents, which seem now to have disappeared). At some point, they decided to be a feedstock aggregator. They have also mentioned building waste to fuel facilities on site at recycling centers in a build to own manner. Now, there is PGM recovery, but it does not seem to be tied (physically or conceptually) to the other lines of business.
My worry is that these are all very high cost of entry fields, and GCEI is trying to enter all of them simultaneously without much experience and seemingly no capital. Now I also worry that they do not have a cohesive plan.
What are others' thoughts on this? What do you think is GCEI's "advantage" over other market participants and entrants?
Factoring may be an option with a stream of receivables, but the costs are very high and it is usually not suitable for project finance. If they have solid offtake and supply agreements, they may be able to obtain a project finance package, but are there enough details on the agreements to know if this is possible? What about through a preferred offering (either stand alone or as part of a larger project finance package)? If that happened, it would be very telling to see how the preferreds valued the company.
That may be, but it seems unlikely that a financier would advance funds without finalizing the terms of the financing.
This raises another question: what type of financing is this? Debt, equity, combo, something else? What are the terms, so we can determine the cost of capital, which will be the biggest intrinsic factor thing affecting value and returns to existing common holders.
The statement about having secured financing was immediately followed by a statement that financing has not been finalized:
"GCE has secured the required capital to order both the plastic and tire pyrolysis systems, in addition to its PGM, Platinum Group Metal facility. Financing for both plants is expected to be concluded prior to the end of Q2 2014."
If financing truly has been secured, then why the second sentence?
Thanks J. I was puzzled by what some thought made the agreements "bankable" when we have not seen the terms of the agreements or the terms of financing, and the statements we have had on financing have been equivocal at best. I agree that we need to see more on the financing before we can conclude that anything is "bankable."
What makes the agreements they have in place bankable?
What do you mean by bankable?
So the upshot is that lottery tickets and roulette wheels are a better investment?
I plan to call them tomorrow, but in my experience investor relations departments (even the good ones) do not do a very good job of answering questions.
Someone else mentioned that number, I was just asking about it.
In this annual report for 2012, they listed assets of $1,464,812 as of December 31, 2012: http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GCEI&id=102766
In this annual report for 2013, they listed assets of $1,161.00 as of December 31, 2012 and then $137,283 as of December 31, 2013: http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GCEI&id=118788
Digging a little deeper, the quarterly report for Q3 2013 (ending September 20, 2013) listed assets of $1,462,800: http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GCEI&id=112858
I am just trying to figure what's the real story and, if assets were $1.4 million (or more) in 2012 and as late as September 2013, why are they so much less now?
A 10-K or annual report is required to list assets. What happened to the assets?
The assets are not listed on their unaudited 2013 annual report:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GCEI&id=118788
Does that mean you are expecting it to be equity financing?
But what happened to the $3 million in assets?
June 30.
As of 12/31/12, $5,460,850.00 in total debt. Debt exceeds assets by $2,380,282.00. Does that imply assets as of 12/31/12 of $3,080,568.00? Am I reading that right?
Thanks, DocOtis. What do you make of the very specific end date?
Longtime lurker, first time poster. I have a few questions I was hoping you all could help me answer. First, what is the float? Second, are the closely held shares restricted? Finally, what type of financing is the company targeting?