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.
I agree. Maybe there aren't any shares really for sale in that range. We must consider this actuality IMO.
Really, i have buy orders in that range, no fill. Hmm I wonder...lol
BUYERS -1 SELLERS-0
Looks like the expectation of spectauclar failure has been severely overblown.
relatively small blocks being traded here. I dont get the impression there is a huge stampede for the exits.
32,244 share sold at 0.0004 MARKET ORDER per fidelity!
"What makes the fraud here even more apparent"
HUH? lol....what fraud? You understand these are allegations right?
My shares are not available for sale.
Kimbo, Lawyers don't apologize. Can be easily mistaken as an admonition of guilt.
Relax, we all got blindsided here...this will eventually unravel itself..for bette or worse IMO.
Nothing suprising in the PR, wasnt' expecting anything earth shattering. The lawyers rightly so, are now in full control at this point.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63990801
Looks like longs, for the most part are stuck in an extended joyride in the interim.
Further, without knowing what the the precise SEC concerns are with LLEG, simply focusing on the pps movements is a fundamentally flawed way of gauging reality IMO.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can be assured the SEC did their own due diligence and stated in the Suspension :...
This is quite a "rich" statement. I do not know any indvidual alive who can validate such a claim.
It also problematic when it is said "You can be assured".
1. If one is not an agent of the SEC, with access to the specifics of this case,it would seem irresponsible to validate someone else's work, especially whom you have never spoken with.
2. It also falsely promotes the strange idea that the SEC "always" do their own due dillegence.
Paradoxically, the only way to combat these notions,are to call into question the SEC'S past behaviors/modalities...which is precisely what we are told on the board, we simply cannot do.
I believe it shoudl be restated with "IN MY OPINION", instead of "you can be assured".
NOTE: If someone is in fact, an acting gent for the SEC, being privvy to the details of this issue,then by all means they can make that claim.
Otherwise, we must be careful to not give the false imnpressions that we have somehow validated information, unless we are personally privvy to...(OPINIONS being expressly separate)
Just my 0.02.
Thanks Bench. For those who may have missed,or forgotten it:
MBorowski Share Monday, June 13, 2011 4:59:07 PM
Re: None Post # of 96571
It looks like the SEC investigated stocks that were promoted by hotstocked.com
Here you can see the SEC was scoping out their promotion on CLYW:
www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-120-clyw-promo.pdf
Here you can see that hotstocked.com released a few articles on LLEG:
http://www.hotstocked.com/companies/l/laidlaw-energy-group-inc-LLEG-68143.html
I believe that, in the end, LLEG will walk out of this a better company than they went in.
Matthew
------------------------------------------------------------------
LILPUPS'SUMMARY:
This really cements my own sentiments a bit more, looks like besides running afoul for some sloppy financial reporting, we may have been found worthy of investigations, "guilty by association".
Depending on the actual depth of hotstock's connection to LLEG management..this may be fairly insignificant...to outright severe fraudulent activity.
If memory serves me correctly: Didn't mike make statements saying they don't pay for stock promotions? And that they haven't diluted shares since sometime years ago? (please correct me,for those with better memories)
So depending on the truthfulness of those statements, there is simply nothing much going on here..
Sloppy paperwork..or severe sharholder manipulation...time will tell.
My shares are simply not for sale. My gut tells me..sloppy paperwork.
As far as the SEC is concerned..scorched earth tactics is the prevailing strategy IMO.
"KILL EM' ALL, LET GOD SORT OUT THE INNOCENT"
HMMM very interesting. I must have missed those postings.
I have the free ihub version, so can't do a search on that topic.
I would be interested if someone can dig up those posts with a link.
Still overpriced @ 0.0001.
No real reason to buy.
logical reasons: insane A/S, ridiculous O/S, non unique technology.
Throwing good money out the window IMO.
Anyone long term investor who has done thier Due diligence, can see what is going on on here.
I think it bizzare the "timing" of the SEC action speaks volumes. Now on the 11th hour, before the PUC can render its final decision..out of the shadows...kaboom.
Now we are given new "overseers", who seem to be hellbent in agreeance with the SEC, doom and gloom prohesizing.
Let me remind folks...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any lleg wrongdoing made public at this time.
Clarifications:
Just becasue this new SEC division was created to "combat fraud", DOES NOT MEAN that all parties being "investigated" have already been found to be fraudulent.
That is why it is called an investigation.
EXAMPLE:
The rico federal statues: If my brother is a drug dealer,and the FBI is investigating him, they may have in their posession certain circumstantial evidence.
At some point they can "set th etrap", that is seize all bank accounts of my brother including those of whom they "suspect" may be involved...until they sort out the actual facts.
It seems clear that certain "information" were given to the SEC, which caused the SEC to make a determination as to set about to uncover fraud,if exists, and to what extent.
The most efficient power (and laziest way) is to suspend the stock (essentially nail a board across the financial exit doorways)
It seems to me that the confusion may have been that certain other companies on the list WERE ALREADY proven by the SEC to have ongoing fraudulent activity. Illefgal stock proomtions etc and unfortunately for LLEG, some of those same fradusters may have been involved "unoficially" with "pumping" lleg stock for thier own purposes.
But it is not uncommon to cast a wide investigative net, then to sort out the network of corruption if you will.
This is not unlike a grand jury, just because you are being investigated, does NOT mean you yourself are guilty, but you could be guilty BY ASSOCIATION.
I have done my homework before buying LLEG shares, and I must say, I'm not selling not one share.
This seems more and more like LLEG getting caught up in somone else's mess...NOT meaning they were not some LLEG trivial website/ceo posts that may have run afoul of the basic sec guildeines.
Just my 0.02.
GLTA
Almost 15 BILLION A/S?? WOOOOW. I would be bad at math to buy shares at this point.
Only A severe reverse split action, would allow for any real money to be made here.
Reverse splits usually end with most regular investors wiped out of their leverage..essentially losing thier shirt.
This is a sad situation IMO.
The more D&D I do here..the scarier it becomes.
15 BILLION O/S??...HUH...Are that for real? That is scary insane.
Click to call technology is not that unique..what the big deal here?
Good point. The argument could be made that the "mass media" CNBC' is viewed unfairly or otherwise, as more of a reputable source/medium of information.
As we well know, stock forum boards has had their fair share of scandalous fraudulent ongoings, especially within the penny stock community.
The standard may have been set higher here IMO on the pink sheets IMO.
However i tend to agree with your well espoused sentiment.
This is very interesting information you provided.
This brings up an interesting scenario.
In your example, it turned out it took "political connections", which LLEG seems to have in spades, yet the company failed even after rising from the greys, but was due to lackluster "technology", which LLEG seems to also have overcome in spades.
I wonder if LLEG will make history here? We may be in unchartered territory,not just another busted stinky pinky.
Since it's impractical to know every single story involved in every single grey market sec suspended pink,speculating to the upside,seems more valid given your example.
we seem to have the two positive things seemingly necesary to make it out alive?
Very interesting. Thanks for the info.
Thank you Alien,
Can you verify if ANY penny company which was suspended by the SEC, ever bounced back from the greys
TIA
"The argument then presented is the proper question should be, "how many Grays were once suspended by the SEC - and then recovered?"
Alas, we should not set the bar so high.
IMO, it would be enough for him to speak to the veracity of the the ideology that "greys are where comps go to die", regardless as to how they originated the occasion to be traded there?
Thank you for this article. Unfortunatley I was unable to verify the author's credentials regarding his "grey market" analysis.
Does every single company that trades on they "greys" truly go there to die?
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Has there ever been any verifiable circumstances where a company actually bounced back from the greys?
Irresepctive to this article,if we can find just one instance where a company survived the greys intact, then it would seem that LLEG stands a good of a chance of any,in light of that reality.
Lastly, Given that most longs who allegedly own substantial amounts of the O/S, seem to be readying to buy more on trading resumption. in this way, it seems the "selling into stupid" possibility, seems feeble at best.
Thoughts?
TIA
This appears to clear up the matter nicely.
"so posts about any Government Body that directly relates to Laidlaw are ON TOPIC but posts about Government that have no bearing on Laidlaw are off topic."
Since we must realize that the SEC's past behavior(s)..is directly related to it's operation policy/mandate as it were.
The policy/mandate, through it' smodality (behavior) has an undeniable direct bearing to LLEG and it's stake holders..allowing for the orignal past behavior/policy issue to be on topic.
IMHO,I hope this matter is reconsidered, and a change be allowed for posters on the board.
As it seems clearer (at least to me) that these types of posts hold some relavance.
This is my last post on this issue.
Thank you again for your time Renee.
Thank you renee,
I unfortunatley read the complete TOS agreement (i'm a speedy reader), and could not find any information contained therein, invalidating my previous posts concerning the relevance of the SEC past behaviors (modality) that could be considered off topic.
I think folks here need a clearer explanation of this issue..(line in the sand)
Thank you for all your hard work modding the board during this diffcult time. :)
"Posts about the SEC's policies that apply to Laidlaw / LLEG are on topic.
Posts about the SEC's behaviors ( eg porn ) or actions ( eg Madoff ) that have NO relevance to Laidlaw / LLEG are off topic."
Renee,
Respectfully:
IMHO, it seems contradictory to say SEC Policies are on topic, yet SEC behavior is not.
As a matter of legal relevance, one simply cannot separate the two.
Example: An serial killer's "policy" is to murder, how can his actual past behavior be irrelevant, if charged?
In order for the SEC to have a "policy", it should be realized that a 'behavior"..or better yet a "modality" is required..and canot be separated.
Any behavior the sec may undertake is simply an organic flow of past behavior. That is to say...as time ensues..the "policy" elicits particualr behavior(s),patterns. Over time the behavior becomes policy...etc.
You cannot separate wet from water.
IMHO, a thoughtful review of Crooners contention should be reviewed in this reality.
I believe posters here as an issue of simple fairness,should have some leeway in some regards,to speak especial concerning the historical precedent/context on the charging agency.
we cannot separate the "SEC" into a segmented singularity of space in time; non existant previous to these allegations,void of past and relevant importance re: past behaviors.
The historical context is pertinent as it relates to, and affects the shareholders of LLEG at this time.
Just my honest 0.02.
Why would I be selling? that thing is heading vertical soon.
5 more days to resume trading.
You see, some companies actually have a REAL future...with REAL revenues, and REAL IN DEMAND products.
Good luck with that solar powered router LMAO!
Watch and learn.
Ahh yess..the old "blame the boogey man M&M'S" junk.
Sorry to bust your bubble...but notice the disastrous volume?
There is NO demand for this stock.
Or are you implyng that the evil M&M's are also manipulating the volume too?
Its' true, I'm lowsy at picking good stocks.
One of my picks..i bought a few million shares @0.0004..it's now sitting at 0.0050. I have lost way too much money :(
I also bought ifxy way at way higher than current pps...i am wayyyy deep in the hole...
I have no clue what I am doing :(
"IFXY still has yet to come Out of the Gate, but when it does, it should Scream!!..imo"
I agree..unfortunately the only screaming I hear around here is when people check thier IFXY trading account balances :(
No worries. You might soon get all you can buy, in the tripple zero ranges IMO.
These are all good points you bring up here.
Admirations...postulations..speculations..prognostications...all too many "ations" for my tastes.
we simply need need more facts as informed investors IMO.
I hope manegement will be more forthcoming going forward, especially in light of the SEC actions.
This doesn't ring a bell. I quite possibly could have missed that snippet for various reasons.
I am very interested in this information.
TIA
What is clear is that we have a mis-communication. Partially my fault?
To be clearer...up until 2 days ago..management led me to believe we had a 75-100M project which we since sold.
Turns out that the 75-100 figure was EXTREMELY incorrect.
Did they purposefully withold that information??..
That is my ONLY point.
Thanks Bench. This only highlights my concern.
It's only 2 days ago I see a new $200 million in debt. Up until 2 days ago..as a shareholder, I was lead to believe it was a 75-100 million project.
Good point you made, we have no way of knowing when this new DEBT structure was actually created.
could have been in August 2010...or a lot earlier.
That is my main concern.
As always it seems..we need more information! lol
"Faith in management.. ?? I don't own any of those companies stock, maybe you do.."
Please clarify. I am under the impression that I own shares in "LLEG"..whose current CEO is Bartoszek...which held, through it's numerous affiliates,a stake in the berlin project..which I understand has since sold it's stake for an unspecified sum.
Now this same CEO, who played the central role in the management of said company(s), which may or may not have engaged in a campaign intentionally, or otherwise, to possibly mislead investors,by witholding certain pertinent information...if had been made known..may have caused a different investment strategy by retail investors. (transparency)
Now maybe I am way off here..please advise,which shares, in what company do you actually own?
There are alot of "may haves" here IMO.
TIA
"My point - if this was finalized after the announcement that we had sold our equity interest then it is none of our business"
IF---being the key word.
What if am correct in my thoery..that this structure was potentially in place prior to berlin equity sale...would that not matter to you as a shareholder?
I will follow wherever the facts eventually lead...pro or con...this story is still unravelling ATM.
Mr Bench,
I respectfully disagree. Just because we "no longer" have Berlin in our portfolio, the point is we were kept in the dark whilst the project was in our portfolio.
Again, it speaks to faith in management IMO.
I have held shares for years here...under a particular impression...which now turns out to be false.
I had no way of getting that information,unless mangement released it to shareholders. Which it chose not to.
Management has always been in the position to clarify, and properly update shareholders with pertinent information concerning thier investment here.
I don't see where this important $200 million price tag would have violated any NDA clauses.
We were kept in the dark.
Suffice it to say...what about the next project?
What will we be purposefully kept in the dark about then?
That is the point.
I am a little dissapointed in the amended capital structure document.
Why didn't us shareholders made aware of the ACTUAL current financical status of the project.
$200 million in debt?
I was always under the impression that it was half that amount.
Whether or not this is "typical" formation for these types of projects is NOT the point.
The real point is, we were kept in the dark as to the ACTUAL stucture and financial status of the project.
I feel a bit misled...peronally speaking.
No amount of d&d would have sussed this important fact out...only the SEC stepping in...which is not a great vote of confidence in mangement IMHO.
Looking forward to more "facts" coming to light.
This doesnt' look good so far IMO.
NO updated share structure posted since last year?
Anyone have any updated info on this?
TIA
.....And a bottle of rum!
HI HO!..its' the pirate's life for me.
Overladen with the choicest bounty,these lead laced goblets,soon will shine...Ner' on the high seas did eyes did spy..such a tresur' to make yet a queen blush.
Buy now, or cry later.
ARGHHHHH