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.
curious, though, why you think the SEC took so long?
"I doubt that will work and that it will be exposed as just another "sleazy" tactic by the Berlin/LLEG opposition, similar to past tactics. "
With all do respect, King, Mayor Grenier has apologized publicly for making such absurd comments. If you want to talk about "sleazy" tactics it would be those very same proponents threatening to create boycotts and or picket those businesses and/or business people in opposition. All water over the damn now though. What's left is your stock at $.002 today and some issues with the amended PPA that may be touching a funding "nerve" over the annual 500,000 MWh.
This stock may not be dead in the water, but it's close to a turtle in heavy interstate traffic trying to survive.
"Do they think they will get a court to overturn the NHSEC and NHPUC?"
The NHSEC hasn't ruled on the new ownership structure, Perhaps they have reason to delay and be concerned about the potential ties Laidlaw may still have to Berlin station amidst a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
"Do they think they will get a court to overturn the NHSEC and NHPUC?"
probably, and at the very least, very good ammunition to obtain a sweetheart of a PPA.
"Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Below"
"I concur with the majority in all respects except with regard to its analysis and conclusion concerning the "2025" issue. Consistent with the reasoning set forth in my previous dissent on the question of whether a NH RPS compliance obligation persists beyond 2025, I would grant the Wood IPP's motion for rehearing on this issue on the basis that the majority misconstrued the law on this matter."
Clifton C. Below
Commissioner
not to mention the other change in the conditional approval of the revised PPA that could very dramatically impact financing.
absolutely. still in the demolition stage however. i'll buy the second.
and that is what has always been the case. nothing new.
For the record, Jon Edwards has never once contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding LLEG or any of its related entities.
or...staying as far away from this as he can?
good luck with that thought.
LLEG suspended due to SEC investigation?
here's the complete posting:
SEC Suspends Trading at Global Resource Corp. to Combat Microcap Stock Fraud
Posted June 7, 2011
Sign in to connect with your friends on Citybizlist
Share Email this Article
Insightful
Unique
Not For Me
We Recommend...
* CEO Robert Toth Sells Another 80K of Polypore Shares for $5.2M - cbl
* Liquidia Founder and CEO Named Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year 2011 Finalists
* INC Research Expands With Trident Clinical Research Acquisition
* Waccamaw Bankshares Submits Compliance Plan to NASDAQ
* Duke Spinoff Bioptigen Raises $1.5M - cbl
* SEC Alert: Pozen Sues Sun Pharma for Patent Infringement
Newstogram
Contribute to Citybizlist, Share Your News
Washington, D.C.-- The Securities and Exchange Commission today suspended trading in 17 microcap stocks because of questions about the adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information about the companies, which trade in the over-the-counter (OTC) market.
The trading suspensions spring from a joint effort by SEC regional offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia; its Office of Market Intelligence; and its new Microcap Fraud Working Group, which uses a coordinated, proactive approach to detecting and deterring fraud involving microcap securities. The trading suspensions follow a similar suspension last week against Uniontown Energy Inc. (UTOG), based in Henderson, Nev., and Vancouver, Canada.
"They may be called ‘penny stocks,' but victims of microcap fraud can suffer devastating losses," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "The SEC's new Microcap Fraud Working Group is targeting the insiders and promoters, as well as the transfer agents, attorneys, auditors, broker-dealers, and other "gatekeepers" who flourish in the shadows of this less-than-transparent market."
George Canellos , Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, added, "The investing public does not have accurate or adequate information about these securities to use in making informed investment decisions. Nonetheless, stock-touting websites, twitter users, and often anonymous individuals posting to Internet message boards have hyped many of these companies, and these promotional campaigns have been followed by spikes in share price and trading volume."
The 17 companies and their ticker symbols are:
• American Pacific Rim Commerce Group (APRM), based in Citra, Fla.
• Anywhere MD, Inc. (ANWM), based in Altascadero, Calif.
• Calypso Wireless Inc. (CLYW), based in Houston.
• Cascadia Investments, Inc. (CDIV), based in Tacoma, Wash.
• CytoGenix Inc. (CYGX), based in Houston.
• Emerging Healthcare Solutions Inc. (EHSO), based in Houston.
• Evolution Solar Corp. (EVSO), based in The Woodlands, Texas.
• Global Resource Corp. (GBRC), based in Morrisville, N.C.
• Go Solar USA Inc. (GSLO), based in New Orleans.
• Kore Nutrition Inc. (KORE), based in Henderson, Nev.
• Laidlaw Energy Group Inc. (LLEG), based in New York City.
• Mind Technologies Inc. (METK), based in Cardiff, Calif.
• Montvale Technologies Inc. (IVVI), based in Montvale, N.J.
• MSGI Security Solutions Inc. (MSGI), based in New York City.
• Prime Star Group Inc. (PSGI), based in Las Vegas, Nev.
• Solar Park Initiatives Inc. (SOPV), based in Ponte Verde Beach, Fla.
• United States Oil & Gas Corp. (USOG), based in Austin, Texas.
Some examples of the promotions are as follows:
• Calypso Wireless Inc. has not filed periodic reports since February 2008, when it filed a report for the period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Despite that, the company's share p
Posted by: jon | June 07, 2011 at 10:39 AM
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DE 10-195
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Petition for Approval of Purchased Power Agreement with Laidlaw
BioPower, LLC
LLC
Order Granting Conditional Approval
Edrest Properties LLC Motion for Rehearing
May 27, 2011
Pursuant to RSA 541:3 and N.H. Code Admit,. Rules Puc ~ 203.33,
LLC0f
New Hampshire hereby requests to terminate its request for rehearing of Order
No. 25,213 dated April 18, 2011.
Respectfully,
Edrest Properties
Jonathan Edwards
Manager 5/27/2011
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
SEC DOCKET NO. 2011-01
Joint Motion of Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC and Berlin Station, for Transfer
and Amendment of the Certificate of Site and
Facility Issued to Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC and
Notice of Change of Major Contractor
Edrest Properties, LLC hereby request to withdraw its intervenor status of
Laidlaw Berlin BioPower/Berlin Station.
Respectfully,
Edrest Properties
Jonathan Edwards
Manager
Be careful of this guy. A Supreme court appeal of some 300 pages just surfaced that stands to have a great deal to do with this company's future. Do your own due diligence.
Be careful of this guy. A Supreme court appeal of some 300 pages just surfaced that stands to have a great deal to do with this company's future. Do your own due diligence.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DE 10-195
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Petition for Approval of Purchased Power Agreement with Laidlaw Berlin BioPower,
LLC
Order Granting Conditional Approval
Edrest Properties LLC Motion for Rehearing
May 17, 2011
Pursuant to RSA 541:3 and N.H. Code Admin. Rules Puc § 203.33, Edrest Properties
LLC of P.O. Box 202 Berlin, New Hampshire hereby requests rehearing of Order No.
25,213 dated April 18, 2011. In particular, Edrest Properties LLC requests that
the Commission reconsider its conditional approval of the PPA between PSNH and
Laidlaw Berlin BioPower, LLC (“LBB”) dated April 18, 2011. Under RSA 541:3, the
Commission may grant rehearing or reconsideration when the motion states good
reason for such relief.
In support hereof, Edrest Properties says as follows:
1.Significant changes to the ownership structure, size and fuel supplier have
occurred since the PPA was conditionally approved by the PUC that can
significantly impact whether the PPA is in the public interest.
2. Pursuant to RSA 162-H:11, "decisions of the Committee are reviewable in
accordance with RSA 541:3. Under RSA 541:3, any party to the action or
proceeding before the Committee, or any person directly affected thereby, may
apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined in the action or
proceeding, or covered or included in the order..."
3. Edrest Properties' partners can be directly impacted by the decision of this
committee by properties owned and managed within close proximity to the
facility.
4.The NH SEC, due to significant changes within the ownership structure and fuel
supplier, have issued a new docket number for this application and are currently
moving through adjudicatory process. The PUC should consider the same process as
a legal right of the rate payer.
5.RSA 541-A:31, in pertinent part, requires adjudicative proceedings when a
matter is considered a "contested case." See RSA 541-A:31 (1997 & Supp. 2001).
"Contested case" is defined as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties,
or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after
notice and an opportunity for hearing." RSA 541-A:1, IV (Supp. 2001). As RSA
378:18 governs special contracts for service, the language contained therein
determines whether there is here a contested case for which an adjudicatory
proceeding is required.
6.Edrest Properties LLC contends that the PUC’s decision to approve the amended
special contract without the benefit of an adjudicatory hearing pertinent to the
changes in ownership structure and fuel supplier is a violation of due process
under both the Federal and State Constitutions. See State v. Cannuli, 143 N.H.
149, 151 (1998). Because Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution is
at least as protective of the ratepayers’ rights as the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, cf. Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H.
387, 389 (1995), we do not engage in a separate federal analysis. See State v.
Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 232 (1983).
7. There has been considerable debate over the authority of the commission to
rule on this PPA after year 2025, Commissioner Below specifically making note of
this concern in this very order.
8.To date, no one other than Edrest Properties has concentrated on the impact
this PPA can have on broadening the 35% depreciation zone impacting the entire
value base within the city of Berlin that offsets the economic benefit derived
from the PPA . Edrest Properties LLC contends that potential wood monopolization
due to the new fuel supplier and related wood cost increase brings into
potential jeopardy thousands of jobs and massive tax revenue risk within six
towns between New Hampshire and Maine. It is no secret that all north country
existing biomass facilities have been included in this docket as intervenors.
Most recently, the NH SEC has received an email from New Page in Rumford Maine
voicing significant concern over increased competition that in Edrest
Properties’ opinion goes beyond free trade through pass through costs to the
rate payer.
9.The companies,PSNH and Laidlaw Berlin Biopower/ Berlin Station, involved with
the PPA would essentially be rewarded with a renewable energy project that can
bring into the equation price escalation that can negate forward progression of
the 25% renewable intiative prior to 2025 by forcing significant risk onto
already established northern NH biomass facilities and their host towns and
cities, not due to fair trade, but due to pass through costs to the ratepayer.
RPS statutes include Class III source generation facilities that began operation
on or before January 1, 2006 and produce electricity from eligible biomass
technologies having a gross nameplate capacity of 25 megawatts or less or
methane gas facilities. The total RPS obligation 13.8% by the year 2015 .There
is significant time to rehear the potential impacts of recent changes made in
both ownership and fuel provider structures prior to year 2015’s goal of 13.8%
renewable derived energy production.
10. Carrier facilities in both Brentwood and Henniker and particularly Brentwood
create potential competition for PSNH's Schiller station. There is valid reason
to be concerned that incentives exist for wood price escalation that could
significantly risk substantial job base and tax revenue to all of NH and western
Maine based on rate payer pass through costs disguised as free trade.
Respectfully
Edrest Properties LLC
Jonathan Edwards
Member
this is by the far the most honest and accurate post i've ever witnessed from a proponent of lleg on this board. hats off.
Big Bucks, Certainly you won't note for the record that history with Laidlaw before the NHSEC has found discovery questions presented by Counsel for the public to be considered relevant. So I will. Are you suggesting for a minute that the new company, Berlin Station, should refer to anything presented by the public counsel to be irrelevant? That would be a very very interesting twist in what's happened historically now wouldn't it? Now why in their right mind would Berlin Station want to "buck" the "mother nature" in this docket when they haven't in the past EVEN if they felt it was irrelevant? By the way, do you really think Counsel for public hasn't significantly studied the relevance of the questions asked prior to?
"Your argument that the plant will devalue the housing sector around it is very lame to say the least. I have looked at the houses you have listed on your web site and the values are already very low"
The Laidlaw boiler has a statistical depreciation of 35% in housing within close proximity to the boiler. That is not my company statistic, that is the city's statistic. Your defense pointing at this needs to be accurate and it is not, that's all.
Additionally, you might ask exLaidlaw's Kusche why his Greenfield Maine plant closed while he was Pres. It may have a great deal to do with the same concerns the IPPS have. But it also certainly raises questions as to Cate Street's director of operations, and may be partially reason for Public Counsel's concern for significant data request. Keep in mind that Laidlaw probably has 2.5 million riding on these developments. Take them lightly.
"These questions are far beyond the scope the changes."
Really? Can you name a question that is please?
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
Berlin Station, LLC
))
)
)
RE: No. 2011-01
DATA REQUESTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC
Counsel For The Public, K. Allen Brooks, ("Counsel") hereby requests the following
1. Please state the number of tons of ashes that the facility with higher efficiency
information from the applicant:
will produce on a monthly basis. Describe in detail the procedures that the facility will
employ to manage and dispose of those ashes with the facility operating at greater output.
Include in your description maps and diagrams showing the location and design of any ash
holding structures or locations. Provide copies of any documents relating to your plans to
sell any such ashes for reuse.
2. Please provide copies of all power purchase agreements ("PPA") with respect
to any energy to be produced by the Project, including any drafts under discussion
subsequent to the PUC's recent determination of conditional approval.
3. Please provide financial statements for each of the entities identified on pages
4-5 of the Joint Motion dated March 9, 2011.
4. Please provide forecasts for earnings/losses of the Project through 2011.
5. Identify the source of funds now on hand and previously expended for costs of
the Project.
6. State the amount of cash on hand for the Project. State the amount of cash
needed in the next 36 months, by quarter, for the development of the Project. State the
amount of income, including loan proceeds or equity, projected for the Project in the next 36
months, by quarter, and the sources of such. State the complete basis for such projections.
7. Identify any loan applications, requests, or proposals for financing made by
the Applicant for this project and provide copies. Identify and provide copies of any term
sheets or commitment letters for such loans. Provide copies of any loan documents
associated with such loans.
8. Please specify the amounts of debt and equity that the Project will need.
Describe all material terms with respect to the debt and the equity, respectively. Identify the
sources of such debt and equity.
9. How much capital for the Project does the Applicant have committed through
financing or equity as of the hearing date?
10. Please provide legal organization charts for each entity that will own any
interest in or operate the facility, the Applicant or the land on which the project will be
constructed.
II. Please provide an updated copy of the Project's financial model showing the
Applicant's financial assumptions and projections on a going forward basis through to
complete amortization of all debt.
12. Please state from where the labor used for construction of the Project will be
obtained.
13. Does the Applicant plan on maximizing the use of New Hampshire labor to
construct the Project? If so, please describe what steps the Applicant will take to ensure that
use of New Hampshire labor will be maximized.
14. Does the Applicant plan on maximizing the use of New Hampshire citizens to
operate, manage, and maintain the Project? If so, please describe what steps the Applicant
will take to ensure that employment of New Hampshire citizens to operate, manage and
maintain the Project will be maximized.
15. Does Richard Carrier Trucking ("RCT") own land suitable for timber
harvesting or any other property or businesses from which bio-fuel suitable for burning at the
Berlin biopower facility could be obtained?'
16. If the answer to question # 15 is yes, please identify the land, property, or
business as well as its location and estimated available biomass volume for the period of the
fuel supply contract.
17. How many individuals does RCT currently employ?
18. How many of the individuals currently employed by RCT are New Hampshire
residents?
I Questions illS and # 16 pertain to any land whether located within or outside of the United States.
19. Does RCT have existing contractual obligations related to the receipt of timber
or other material suitable for use as fuel at the facility?
20. If the answer to question # 19 is yes, please identify the entities or individuals
with whom RCT has a contractual obligation.
21. If the answer to question # 19 was yes, please identify how many of the entities
22. Please provide a copy of the fuel supply agreement with RCT.
or individuals identified in the answer to question #20 are New Hampshire companies or
New Hampshire residents.i
23. Provide copies of the Facility Lease and Right of Use Agreement, referenced
on page 5 of the Joint Motion.
24. Provide copies of any agreements, term sheets or letters of intent with
Waldron Engineering, Delta Power Services, Black & Veatch, and Shaw Group.
25. Please identify all members of the Laidlaw Advisory Board, including their
contact information and biographical information. Do you expect the membership of the
Board to change prior to the commencement of commercial operations? If so, why?
26. Please specify each condition of the Certificate that you ask the Committee to
amend and provide specific terms that you ask to see instead.
27. Please explain all the reasons why Homeland Renewable Energy and
Fibrowatt Operations, LLC are being replaced. Provide copies of any correspondence
relating to these reasons.
28. Provide copies of all documents that relate in any way to any of the questions
stated above and your responses thereto.
1 At the previous hearings, the representative frorn the applicant's previous fuel supplier, Cousineau Forest Products
("Cousineau"') testified at great length. The questions above are not intended to be exhaustive and the State expects
that the applicant will ensure that RTC answers all questions previously posed to Cousineau either through
testimony at the hearing or through pre-filed testimony subject to cross-examination.
29. Please identify the person responding to each of the foregoing data requests,
include their name, address, title, and experience and qualification for answering the data
request.
COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC
By his attorneys
MICHAEL A. DELANEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/'> c·: I...-pe.'.-".-7
K. Allen Brooks
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Bureau
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397
Tel. (603) 271-3679
Peter c.r. Roth
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Bureau
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397
Tel. (603) 271-3679
conditional approval of the PPA still needs to be agreed upon by PSNH and Laidlaw/Berlin station. If that happens it can and will be appealed.
entirely different from the PPA before the PUC is the changes before the SEC that Berlin Station/Laidlaw requested. This is where discovery and expert witness should and will hit center stage as to significant changes in the market place since the first SEC docket was conditionally accepted. Watch and see.
The reality is that this entire power issue is changing immensely fast in NH and now the SEC has a new docket before them known as Berlin station. You'll note that many developments have occurred in docket 160 (PSNH mitigation) since the initial conditional SEC approval and I strong believe that is why attorneys for the Consumer advocate want discovery and expert testimony at this point in time. The way it can be easily seen is that with 40% migration forcasted, it's an entirely different game (and a different docket) than what was conditionally acceptable many moons ago.
http://www.puc.state.nh.us/Regulatory/Docketbk/2010/10-160.html
Customer migration is a HUGE problem for PSNH. Since 1999 competition has had the opportunity to tap into the residential market but has chosen not to do so because...THEY HAVE BEEN TOO BUSY TAKING AWAY MOST OF THE MAJOR USERS OF POWER FROM PSNH! They've been too busy to look at the little guy. But now they're advertising much cheaper power solutions in a NH paper in your town, and contacting the very municipalities for mailing lists. With customer migration approaching 40% with PSNH, I smell potential bankruptcy risk with the 900 lb gorilla formulating 20 year contracts they may not be able to live with. This is a huge development for sure. Very very exciting times for NH to get PSNH to come back to reality with their rates.
I think you may very well be in for an extremely rude awakening.
No. They are accepting information from parties through the process and accept all questions and concerns up to and through the hearing process.
I did answer in a response to Purplemountain. All intervention requests were taken under advisement.
You certainly hit that nail on the head. Hopefully for you it won't be the last nail in the...
Counsel for the NHSEC, Attny Mike Iacoppino stated in testimony this past Friday that the decision made on the PPA was a rejection, not an approval.
Whether or not the changes to the SEC application should be accepted, discovery and cross examination as to the new wood supplier, increase in output, etc.
All intervenor requests were taken under advisement, Purplemountain.
Yes. The NH SEC has scheduled to have a meeting on May 18 or 19 or both to hold a adjudicatory hearing.
"The PUC said it found the agreement as filed not in the public’s interest. It noted the PPA could cost as much at $2 billion over its 20 year term."
So NEWB1 are you insinuating that the State of NH is saying the PPA is in the publics' best interest? Or did they say what is quoted: "The PUC said it found the agreement as filed not in the public’s interest"
Keep in mind that the SEC decision initially was heavily contingent also. It wasn't as if Laidlaw received a "shoe in" to begin with and now counsel for the public is testifying for the rate payer that this "NEW" deal is a very "DIFFERENT" deal and one which demands discovery, cross and expert testimony. Ever seen a PUC decision with over 100 pages recently by the way?
It states it's conditionally approved upon significant changes which in layman's terms is stating; if this was a test and the total possible score is 100, we accept 65% as ok. Is a 65 a passing grade in the Laidlaw school?
What I see is a Laidlaw proposal that has just been bullet holed, big bullet holes, hundreds of millions of dollars being discounted and big big issues that could forever impact negatively, the NH forest industry. On the other side of the coin, it is truly too bad that these players could not come to terms that are at least reasonable for the State of NH. Obviously the terms presented are NOT even close to acceptable.
Bigger question is whether PSNH can live with the changes. They may hold ALL the Laidlaw cards and most probably many related to the 2.4 million in stagnation at this moment if you think about it.
You tell me. Is 65 out of 100 a passing grade for Laidlaw's PPA? Is that (65% of the potential revenue) not what the PUC is accepting?
So you think a 35% cut in projected revenue is an approval of Laidlaw Matt? I know you do because the State of NH cleverly call a denial of the PPA terms a conditional approval yet let's do some comparisons. We have a counter offer that is 35% less than the potential project revenue. Let's ask a few questions here;
1. If gas is at $3.40 per gallon do you think they'll agree to sell at $2.21/gal?
2. If a tank of oil costs $875.00, do you think they'll sell at $568.75?
3. If a home's market value is $100,000 do you suppose it will sell at $65,000?
4. Do you think that McDonald's will discount their dollar menu due to tough economic times to a 65 cent menu?
The PUC is asking Laidlaw to take hundreds of millions away from this PPA from hell because it's a PPA from hell. Congratulations on your approval as I think its the best approval you're going to get and its far from an approval but you can call it that if it makes your day. Don't forget the 900 lb gorilla wanted a nonappealable PPA and they had very good reason to ask for that "weasel clause". I'm all for negotiating our way to the IPPS staying in business and more believable rate increases. Now the PUC has mandated that PSNH be on that same page. That is simply in NH's interest.