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 bet I can find 5 OLD Prs were MSITF mentions TB test and marketing TB test - they put out nearly identical PR year after year - slight changes but always recycled
Medical Services VScan Tuberculosis (TB) Rapid Test Kit Delivers Higher Accuracy Than Any Other TB Test Kits and Detects Only Active TB
November 10, 2003
EDMONTON, Canada, November 10, 2003 -- Medical Services International Inc. is pleased to announce that its VScan rapid test kit for Tuberculosis (TB) is the only TB test kit that measures ONLY ACTIVE TB. There are NO false positives with the VScan TB rapid test kits. Previous testing has shown that the VScan TB test kit has a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 100%. These results substantially exceed the accuracy of any other existing TB tests.
Existing TB tests routinely produce false positives when a person has previously been vaccinated against TB using some of the vaccines available. This results in further testing that is expensive, stressful to the individual and time consuming. The VScan TB test kit is the only known test kit for TB that measures only ACTIVE TB and has no false positives.
Currently, the Company is undergoing independent evaluations that will add to our existing data base and will assist in the marketing and regulatory approval process of the TB test kit. One of the priorities will be to apply for regulatory approval in the United States.
TB is a highly contagious, infectious disease. It affects people regardless of age, sex, race or social status. TB maybe caught simply from talking to a person with active TB. It can be transmitted through sputum and saliva or everyday items like dishes, linens, papers and cigarettes. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) more than 8 million new cases of active TB are diagnosed each year and over 2.9 million deaths per year. TB is treatable if detected early.
As with the rest of the VScan Test kits the TB test kit is fast (under 20 minutes) easy to use and easy to interpret. All that is required is a single drop of blood (serum and plasma can also be used). Since the kit does not require either electricity or refrigeration the kit can be used anywhere from remote areas to Doctor's offices.
How come Claude never disclosed he lost the deal for the Ozona gas wells? He made all sorts of PR about the wells, about LOI buying drilling co, then the wells AND drilling company show up with Jim Dial and FTXN/GFCI. That is all you need to know about Claude and LSGH IMO - He is scammer IMO
Just got home from mini vacation - I see Chev is bored and wants me to get some new DD on WEGI? I usually only spend precious few minutes with google searches and or reading thru SEC filings, I always find extreme large amount of info in mere minutes. Since Chev insists on more I will make point to track down the TA and call them this week, going to be tough early in week for me, very busy catching up. I also wanted to call NY circuit civil and get some transcripts for the many lawsuits WEGI has pending in NY - as long as I am going to spend a little "real time" making calls, might as well make them worth while and find some new info for the board and Chev. I will try to find time to make calls this week.... Thank you for the invite Chev :)
CHEV CALLING WEGI TRANSFER AGENT IS NOT TOPS ON MY LIST - IT IS ON MY LIST AND ILL GET AROUND TO IT - BUT NOT SURE WHAT THE POINT IS - NOT HUGE PRIORITY FOR ME FOR SURE - PROB NEXT WEEK - BEEN ENDING RECORD QUARTER IN SALES AND LEAVING TOWN IN THE MORNING FOR LONG HOLIDAY - I READ THE FILINGS - I KNOW THEY HAVE MILLIONS OF SHARES UNDER THE O/S - THEY SOLD MILLIONS AT .001 - ALMOST MORE THEN THE TOTAL CURRENT O/S IS SOLD ON OPTIONS AND WARRANTS AT .001 PER SHARE - NO HURRY - WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IT OR SOMETHING?
what does merril have to do with WEGI?
Here is the complete text MTA/OIG #2005-65L
http://mtaig.state.ny.us/assets/pdf/2006%20blurbs.pdf
PAGE2
Trade-Winds
Overcharges
MTA/OIG #2005-65L
In March of 2005, OIG released a report detailing $260,000 in unsupported and erroneous
charges by Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration (Trade-Winds) for the disposal of waste
materials generated by LIRR. In the report, OIG concluded that Trade-Winds had submitted
altered and/or incorrect documents to both OIG and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s
office. OIG recommended LIRR deny payment for the charges that could not be supported with
corresponding manifests and invoices.
3
Subsequent to the 2005 OIG report, Trade-Winds supplied LIRR with 133 waste manifests that it
claimed would verify almost $130,000 in questionable disposal charges. It also rejected the OIG
report’s claim that it had overcharged nearly $100,000 for the cleanup of mercury-contaminated
waste after mischaracterizing the toxicity level of the waste.
OIG reviewed the documents and concluded that most – not all – of the disposal charges to LIRR
remained unsubstantiated. While the manifests did support almost $28,000 in charges; $135,000
remains unsubstantiated. Sixty-one of the manifests did not pertain to the invoices they allegedly
supported, (i.e. the manifest identified a different work location than the invoice). The invoices
for the remaining unsupported charges either billed LIRR for more waste than the manifests
indicated or claimed charges unsupported by any manifests.
Trade-Winds iterated a belief that it had not overcharged LIRR for the disposal of mercurycontaminated
waste. OIG looked again at the tests performed on the waste by FDNY, by Trade-
Winds and by two registered waste disposal facilities and found that the waste was indeed
mischaracterized by Trade-Winds to their financial benefit.
Based on these findings, OIG recommended LIRR continue to withhold payment for the invoices
that remain unsubstantiated. OIG further recommended that LIRR consider the information
contained within this report as significant adverse information, which should be considered
during any future contract negotiations with Trade-Winds and/or any of its principles.
Here is the complete text for MTA/OIG #2002-26L
http://videos.news12.com/TradeWindsCostOverrun.htm
Re: The Trade-Winds Cost Overrun
MTA/OIG #2002-26L
Dear Mr. Dermody:
The MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)[1] contacted this Office to report large cost overruns on a contract with Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. (Trade-Winds) [2] and to ask us to investigate those overruns. While the cost of the contract was not to exceed $3 million over four years, Trade-Winds billed LIRR for over $2 million during the first year alone. We investigated these overruns and that effort continues. We report here on evidence of a failure of the internal control system.[3] Subsequent reports will address the results of highly intensive comparisons and analysis of available documents chronicling the execution of this contract. Those reports will focus on, among other things, any evidence of criminality or fraud in the overcharges.
Along with the rest of present LIRR management and staff, you richly deserve accolades for the extraordinary strides the railroad has made in raising customer satisfaction and increasing safe performance statistics. We submit, however, that getting internal control and accountability challenges in hand is the LIRR’s most pressing job. In our view, your team is more than a match for the challenge of reinvigorating and reestablishing internal controls, and we hope our admittedly frank and candid observations are of constructive value in this important effort.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Accountability
Above all, the Trade-Winds contract overrun illustrates the value of accountability. While this report deals with a single contract at a single entity, the problems encountered are, in my experience, more or less universal. The general Trade-Winds lessons set forth here should be reviewed across the MTA and their import carefully considered as the MTA embarks on consolidation.
User Department Failed To Give Input for Contract Drafting
The significant omissions in this contract include that, at the critical drafting stage, one expected user department was solicited for input, but failed to provide meaningful comments. We found no evidence of an accountability mechanism in place to extract the input and correct the employee or employees in the user department for failing to supply input in the first place. Clearly, the contract got off on the wrong foot.
No Legal Department Review
In addition, the LIRR Legal Department did not review this $3 million dollar contract, spanning four years, prior to signing. Apparently there is no standing rule at the LIRR that contracts of this size or duration have legal oversight. Given the amount of money involved, asking the LIRR Legal Department to review the contract, even if limited to a review of form, seems a prudent safeguard.
Moreover, this agreement was created by non-lawyer contract managers in a cut-and-paste manner using a prior contract for similar services as a template. The cut and paste operation was so primitive that irrelevant and ultimately damaging footnotes from the source document were imported into the Trade-Winds agreement like a common “typo.” Had the lawyers been involved in reviewing the contract, perhaps it would not have been ambiguous, incomplete, or contradictory in its terms and provisions, and someone would have noticed the cut and paste footnote error.
Partly as a result of flaws in the contract, mid-level LIRR managers had to make decisions regarding its interpretation based on the railroad’s needs and prior practices rather than the contract’s explicit terms. The lack of due precision in the drafting of the contract also allowed Trade-Winds to effectively set its own prices for out-of-scope work and charge the highest amount possible for work the contract did not clearly price out. LIRR’s problems with the Trade-Winds contract were not solely about drafting errors, however. Even in cases where the contract language clearly and unambiguously set price parameters, LIRR managers acted outside their actual authority and approved charges above contract rate and out-of-scope -- with impunity -- until two-thirds of the money, more than $2 million, was spent.
Abandonment of Internal Controls
We also found a general lack of regard for internal controls and procedures. Managers cast policy and procedure aside time and again, failed to challenge dubious invoices, and ignored contract limits on price or scope. It comes as no surprise that charges against this contract reached two-thirds of its funding in one-quarter of the time covered by the contract. These acts are proof of insufficient accountability.
Internal Controls and Accountability Are Key Components of Corporate Governance
While delegating authority is essential, without the counterbalance of accountability, delegation becomes benign neglect. To avoid a repeat of these overruns, LIRR’s procurement policy and procedure -- including contract preparation -- must be the subject of a comprehensive review. We recommend that the LIRR create an initiative that re-focuses and re-establishes its internal controls, stressing training, performance measurement, and accountability.
Senior management’s failure to hold middle managers and staff accountable through fair but relentless performance measurement is, in the final analysis, an abdication of the requirement that budgeting and its alter ego, spending, be a rational process of prioritizing and planning from the top down. Without control over how the money is spent, the budget is no longer a proscriptive process about where the LIRR is going, but rather an ex post facto exercise in trying to find money to cover what was spent by middle managers and staff.
OIG INVESTIGATION
LIRR Internal Investigation
At the outset, we note that the LIRR advanced a number of conclusions in its internal review. We believe the LIRR’s internal investigation was an honest attempt to understand what went wrong on this engagement of Trade-Winds. As our review takes into account additional data beyond that available to the LIRR, we will be taking different positions on certain issues than the LIRR did in its internal review.
The Contract
The Trade-Winds contract at issue was awarded in July 2000. It called for Trade-Winds to transport and dispose of solid and liquid waste and to maintain and clean oil/water separators, oil storage tanks, and collection pans. It was one of four similar contracts the LIRR awarded to the lowest bidders.[4] The LIRR Safety Department (Safety) requested the contract, but the Maintenance of Equipment Department (MOE) was its principal user. Within MOE, Project Engineer Jeffrey Schoman was the project manager for the Trade-Winds contract until the LIRR terminated him in late 2001.[5] Because of its concerns regarding the large cost overruns, the LIRR stopped using Trade-Winds early in 2002. It now uses AB Oil to perform the same services once provided by Trade-Winds.
Safety prepared the contract. Environmental Engineer Lewis Wunderlich was primarily responsible for this task under the supervision of Paul Manske, Senior Director, Occupational and Environmental Safety. Safety used the prior waste contract as a model and, for the most part, the July 2000 contract was identical to it.[6] The Procurement and Logistics Department’s (P&L’s) Frank Conway, a Senior Contract Administrator, administered the contract’s bidding and award.[7] MOE contributed to the contract’s early drafts but according to Manske failed to review the final draft. He said Safety asked Schoman to review the draft, but Schoman did not without any negative consequences to him. In our view, this was an inexcusable abdication of responsibility by Schoman, and a failure of accountability on the part of both his superiors and P&L. Issuing a contract without a full review by its most frequent user guarantees that any deficiencies in the agreement will be magnified. The LIRR Legal Department was not asked to play a role in either drafting or vetting of the contract. Both factors -- MOE’s failure to review the final draft and the absence of a legal review -- indicate that the current policy has significant gaps in common sense-based internal controls and accountability. This further suggests that a review of policies and procedures in this area would have great benefits.
Unfortunately, rather than being mere technical errors, these omissions played a major role in the problems encountered later, particularly with billings on oil/water separator and collection pan work. To understand why, one must understand the contract’s pricing structure for such work.
Contract Pricing Structure
The contract’s “Service Call/Call-Out Charge” section (page 1) required bidders to provide a “Unit Cost per Call,” or “service call-out charge” for work in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Nassau and Suffolk counties. These charges ranged from $40 in Manhattan and Brooklyn to $325 in Queens. Footnote 1, page 1 of the contract states that:
The unit price per service call-out shall include all costs for labor, equipment, materials, tools, travel per diem, appropriate health and safety requirements and equipment, incidentals, etc.
The unit price per service call-out shall not apply to the category of work titled Maintenance of Oil/Water Separators, Underground Waste Oil Storage Tanks and Collection Pans. The Unit Costs for this work shall include all costs associated with the required services [emphasis in original].
Analysis of Trade-Winds’ Overcharges
During this investigation, we examined three types of overcharges identified by the LIRR:
· Service Charges: Contrary to the contract’s terms, Trade-Winds included a service call–out charge for every day spent pumping and cleaning oil/water separators and drip pans.
· Pump-Out Disposal Rates: Instead of charging $.25-$.45 per gallon to pump out oil/water separators, as the contract specified, Trade-Winds charged the railroad $.85 cents per gallon in most cases.
· Time and Material Charges: Contrary to the terms of the contract, Trade-Winds charged the LIRR for time and materials for oil/water separator and drip pan work.
In these three areas, we found almost $450,000 in overcharges, or 73 percent of the $613,000 billed for oil/water separators and drip pans. Of the three, time and material charges (in excess of the fixed cleaning rate) were by far the most significant, adding almost $350,000 to Trade-Winds’ invoices.[8]
Arthur Baldwin, Trade-Winds’ project manager for this contract, explained Trade-Winds’ charges.[9] He said the railroad’s new DM-30 and DE-30 diesel locomotives dropped sand onto the tracks. This, he said, made it more expensive than anticipated to maintain oil/water separators and collection pans. He also claimed that he received verbal permission from Conway to charge the railroad for labor and materials and the higher pump-out rate because of the sand problem.[10] We could not confirm this with Conway because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when we subpoenaed him. Regardless of whether or not Conway gave his permission, though, he clearly did not have actual authority to verbally approve changes.[11] In addition, any discussions or agreements made prior to execution of the contract would have been invalid.[12] The contract explicitly contained these restrictions. Trade-Winds clearly violated the terms of the contract.
In short, Trade-Winds overcharged the LIRR for labor and materials and call-out charges for oil/water separator cleanings. If the firm believed that unforeseen field conditions, such as sand on the tracks and in the collection pans and oil/water separators, warranted a change order, it should have obtained a written change order from the LIRR as the contract required. Simply changing its billing method based on Conway’s purported verbal assurances was not contractually permitted. Nevertheless, given the internal control environment, it was sufficient to get the invoice paid.
LIRR Contract Management Lapses
We looked at the three levels of LIRR staff responsible for this contract. The MOE project manager was Schoman. His immediate supervisor was W. Jesse Lemanski. Lemanski’s General Manager was Daniel Cleary.
Regardless of Trade-Winds’ actions, had LIRR’s internal controls been followed, Schoman would have questioned and denied the overcharges. Schoman obviously failed to follow the rules, in this case presented in LIRR Policy E-10, by failing to ensure that invoices were correct as per the contract or that work billed for was actually performed. The lapse in accountability and internal controls did not stop with Schoman. W. Jesse Lemanski, Schoman’s immediate supervisor, acknowledged that he should have checked on Schoman more often. Lemanski told the MTA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that Schoman could be a good worker, “but tried to get out of work when he could.” Lemanski said he knew Schoman’s “routine,” but when Schoman started working for him in April 1999, he seemed to “behave.” Exacerbating the problem was Lemanski’s lack of familiarity with the Trade-Winds contract. Without sufficient knowledge of the contract’s provisions, it would have been difficult, at best, for Lemanski to know whether Schoman was performing well or not.
Daniel Cleary, General Manager of Production/Program Management and Plant Maintenance, was in charge of Lemanski’s unit. Cleary said that when Lemanski became Schoman’s supervisor in April 1999, Lemanski’s unit was understaffed. As a result, Lemanski spent most of his time addressing what Cleary considered more immediate concerns. While this may well have been a contributing factor, it is not an excuse for Lemanski or the LIRR. Adequate staffing to perform tasks, whether they be management or otherwise, is an integral part of sound operations. “Understaffing” is proof of an unsound practice and a hallmark of poor planning.
Ignored Policies and Procedures
We found that the railroad’s Corporate Policies and Procedures are not consistently followed. For example, Policies E12-3 and E24-4 prohibit the extension of contracts unless a change order is approved. However, Trade-Winds’ prior waste disposal contract with the LIRR was to expire on December 31, 1997, but was extended until July 2000 without a formal change order. When that was pointed out to two P&L managers, they acknowledged that particular policy was not
being followed.[13] Another manager admitted to asking contractors to do out-of-scope work, a process forbidden by LIRR Corporate Policies and Procedures, though “infrequently.” The problem of out-of-scope work being performed, sometimes based on verbal assurances, occurred not only on the Trade-Winds contract, but also on other environmental contracts as well. We are aware of a number of instances (involving several contracts) where work, and additional money, was added to a contract without the change order process being followed.[14]
This is a significant lapse. Strong policies and procedures -- which detail what must be done in particular situations, by whom, and how -- form the backbone of any effective internal control system. In their absence, accountability disappears because of the lack of a defined process against which to gauge whether an employee is handling a particular task correctly. Moreover, the willingness to violate policies and procedures by bypassing mandated approval steps renders the concept of internal control meaningless.
Contract Problems
The Trade-Winds contract was fraught with ambiguous and conflicting terms and omissions. For example, footnote 1 on page 1 indicates that Trade-Winds may not bill for service call-outs for maintenance of oil/water separators, underground waste oil storage tanks, and collection pans. However, footnote 2 on page 12 (the price schedule for maintenance of oil/water separators, underground waste oil storage tanks, and collection pans) states: “The unit cost includes only the cost for treatment and/or disposal of the particular waste. All other costs associated with the work are included in the service call-out charge.” Thus, while the first footnote precludes call-out and labor charges for oil/water separator and drip pan work, the latter footnote seems to allow call-out charges.
LIRR employees acknowledged that footnote 2, which appears on every page of the contract except page 1, was mistakenly included as a footer, a proofreading error. Ronald Fioriello, the contract’s current Administrator, admitted that the contract was “not written too tight,” and that it “is not being administered as written.” He said that whoever wrote the contract did not think it through clearly. Following the literal word of the contract, he said, “doesn’t make any sense.” Our review confirmed Fioriello’s plain-English assessment.
Indeed, the portion of the contract addressing oil/water separators, collection pans, and underground storage tanks is incomplete on its face. While it provides a fixed unit cost for cleaning oil/water separators, which is apparently intended to cover time and materials, the contract contains no provisions at all for labor and materials for simply pumping out oil/water separators, or cleaning drip pans. [15] Footnote 1, page 1 precludes service call-out charges for oil/water separator, drip pan, and waste oil storage tanks, stating that the “‘Unit Costs’ for this work shall include all costs associated with the required services.” However, page 12, which provides the unit costs, merely includes the cost per gallon cost of waste oil pumped out and the cost per linear foot of drip pans cleaned. In the case of service call-outs or fixed charges, the contract contains no provisions for labor and materials.
Another significant disparity between contract limits and approved invoices involves labor charges for disposal and replacement of track blankets. Such work accounted for $304,560 in labor charges including 544 hours of supervisor time and 3,960 laborer hours. The contract, however, only called for 40 hours of supervisors’ time and 200 hours of laborers’ time. Consequently, Trade-Winds’ bid only included $18,200 for labor.[16] Additionally, the contract, and consequently Trade-Winds’ bid, was based on the estimated disposal and replacement of 1,000 linear feet of track blankets between the tracks and 1,000 feet outside the tracks. However, Trade-Winds actually disposed of or replaced 12,800 linear feet of track blankets between the tracks and 27,500 feet outside the tracks. All together actual track blanket costs were $448,689, significantly beyond Trade-Winds’ bid of $21,146.
Errors of this type, especially regarding labor charges, were one of the main reasons billings were so high. Several individuals, including Fioriello, expressed the belief that labor and material charges for track blanket work was appropriate. We asked him about footnote 2 on page 6 (“Labor Rates”), which reads: “The unit cost includes only the cost for treatment and/or disposal of the particular waste. All other costs associated with the work are included in the service call-out charge.” Fioriello said the railroad had come to understand that footnote 2, which appeared on every page, was a mistake. He said that if the contract were strictly interpreted, “labor is out almost completely.” He acknowledged that the contract as written does not envision labor as a charge for track blankets, but he said it would be unfair not to allow labor charges.
Overcharges for oil/water separators and associated work, ($446,503), which are considered “in dispute” by LIRR, plus extra track blanket work ($425,793), which is not considered “in dispute,” total $876,439 in unauthorized payments, made in contravention of the contract’s terms or LIRR- or MTA-wide policy.
Interim Corrections
LIRR management is to be commended for their desire to correct the flaws in this process and for taking interim steps to address internal control issues. It is too soon, however, to know whether the interim steps undertaken at the LIRR have adequately addressed the specific problems identified in this report.
For example, Lemanski has instituted a process in which his contract administrator now reviews billings. The problem remains that the contract administrator is not necessarily in a position to determine whether something is an appropriate charge.
Other changes Lemanski has made in how the contract is administered include:
· He now requires an MOE representative to be present at all cleaning and pumping of oil water separators and drip pans.
· Vendor costs are reviewed immediately after a job is completed.
· Lemanski now tracks the frequency of vendor visits to ensure all equipment is pumped and cleaned regularly.
· He started tracking quantities of waste removed from each site to ensure that future invoices that are inconsistent with past work are reviewed with greater attention.
We note that these procedural changes have not been committed to writing and formally promulgated, owing perhaps to the need to await the outcome of this review. We are hopeful that once our review is concluded these measures will be followed, assessed, and strengthened.
The LIRR plans to re-bid the environmental contracts, rather than extend them. Based on current funding, that should occur soon. When new contracts are awarded, Fioriello said, there would be separate contracts awarded for each user department. These contracts would be limited in scope to the types of work required by each of these departments. This change by itself does not, however, affect the LIRR’s internal control environment or impose accountability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We offer the following recommendations to provide a better control environment and improve accountability over the work of those involved in drafting, awarding, and managing contracts.
We urge LIRR management to design and implement an accountability system similar or equivalent to Compstat in order to stress the importance of internal controls to managers and employees and require more dynamic and interactive management as the LIRR style. If management believes that such a model does not work, we ask for an explanation.
In drafting new environmental contracts, the process must include sufficient input from both MOE and Safety, respectively, to ensure that they are complete, internally consistent, and free of ambiguities. To ensure that this occurs, we recommend that the department heads sign off on the text of the contracts, approving both the need and appropriateness of the services sought.
LIRR Law Department approval -- at least as to form of the contract -- should be required prior to contract execution, at least for multi-year contracts that will or are capable of crossing the million dollar threshold.
The contract should clearly identify all charges.
The contract development process should include a careful written analysis of scope that is kept in the contract file so that the LIRR does not incur “scope creep” including unanticipated, but otherwise foreseeable charges, such as the cost of track blanket work.
The process described above, in which a working group prepares a contract with input from P&L, user departments, and the Law Department should be formally promulgated and incorporated into the LIRR’s Corporate Policies and Procedures.
The LIRR should immediately begin to revise its Corporate Policies and Procedures, particularly in the general areas of contracts and procurement, and staff training in the new or updated policies should be undertaken.
As part of procurement policy training, all employees must be advised that a failure to follow these policies can result in disciplinary action for them as well as the vendor. Individual job descriptions should be reviewed to ensure that they are complete enough to provide adequate accountability.
Because of Trade-Winds’ failure to follow contractual requirements in billing the LIRR, it should be subjected to a full responsibility review before it can be awarded a new environmental contract.
The LIRR should as a part of all pre-award meetings secure vendors’ signatures on a signed copy of a list of “special conditions” that explicitly draws vendors’ attention to procedures governing contract change orders, modification of terms and the fact that no verbal modifications are binding on the LIRR.
Please advise me within 30 days of your receipt of this letter of any actions that you decide to take with regard to the foregoing. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.
As always, thank you for your continued courtesy and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Matthew D. Sansverie
cc: P. Kalikow
K. Lapp
P. Spinelli
M. Mahon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] We coordinated our efforts with the Auditor General to avoid duplication of effort. We benefited greatly from their work and generosity in sharing their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the internal control mechanisms in place at the LIRR. I thank Paul Spinelli and his staff for their cooperation and professionalism.
[2] We conducted this investigation in accordance with the Quality Standards for Investigations promulgated by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
[3] For purposes of this report, we define the internal control system as a coordinated set of processes, functions, activities, computer programs, and people who are grouped together or consciously segregated to ensure the achievement of clearly defined objectives.
[4] The other firms were AB Oil Services, Ltd., Earthcare Company of New York, and Fenley and Nichol Environmental, Inc.
[5] Schoman appeared at the Inspector General’s office to be questioned under oath on April 12, 2002. The questioning involved another contract that he managed. After a recess, Schoman refused to return and answer further questions without our promise of immunity from prosecution. OIG has no power to grant such a request, and upon being so informed, Schoman refused to participate.
[6] The prior contract, like the one awarded in July 2000, was one of four contracts awarded to four environmental firms, including Trade-Winds. The other three firms were Maumee Express, Inc., Environmental Services of America, Inc., and Waste Technology Services, Inc.
[7] Although Conway managed bidding and award, he retired on August 1, 2000. His last day of work was July 18, 2000. Thus, he was not involved in administering the contract.
[8] The LIRR has indicated that some yet undetermined portion of this amount represents out-of-scope work that remains subject to negotiations.
[9] OIG interviewed Baldwin under oath on March 14 and August 1, 2002.
[10] Rudy Vazquez, LIRR’s Deputy General Manager of Diesel Shops, confirmed the DE-30s and DM-30s did, at one time, discharge sand because of a test feature built into the software for those locomotives. When an engineer turned off one of these trains (“keyed-out”) in a yard, it discharged a small amount of sand to simulate emergency braking. The purpose of the sand is to increase traction between the train’s wheels and the tracks during emergency braking. It did not take long, though, to realize the feature was causing problems. It was subsequently eliminated through a software modification done under warranty.
[11] Item 5 of the contract’s terms and conditions (“Changes”) states: “Changes shall not be binding upon LIRR except when confirmed in writing by a member of LIRR’s Procurement and Materials Management Department. The issuance of information, advice, approvals or instructions by LIRR’s technical personnel or other representatives shall be deemed expressions of personal opinion only and shall not affect LIRR’s and seller’s rights and obligations hereunder, unless the same is in writing signed by an authorized representative of the LIRR’s Procurement and Materials Management Department and which expressly states that it constitutes a change to this order.”
[12] Item 8 of the contract’s terms and conditions (“Entire Agreement”) states: “This order sets forth the entire agreement between the LIRR and the Seller, superceding all prior agreements and understandings, written or oral, and may not be altered, waived, or modified except in writing by the LIRR’s Procurement and Logistics and Materials Management Department.”
[13] One of the two P&L officers attributed that failure to comply to the fact that LIRR Corporate Policies and Procedures, dating to the early to mid-1990s, was “very old and outdated.” While we did not perform an exhaustive examination of LIRR Corporate Policies and Procedures, we note that there have been many changes since most of the policies and procedures were promulgated. The MTA All-Agency Guidelines have been amended, the dollar threshold for MTA Board approval of purchase contracts has changed, and the LIRR has implemented a new computer procurement system. We believe the primary problem was the failure to follow properly promulgated rules and regulations. Nevertheless, we also believe that it would be advantageous to review, expand, and amend as necessary LIRR Corporate Policies and Procedures.
[14] Many examples of this are described in Review of LIRR Environmental Contracts, MTA 01-048, by MTA Audit Services. While that report primarily addresses weaknesses in the CULLINET system, our ongoing investigation has identified the failure to follow LIRR policies and procedures as a causal factor.
[15] Oil and lubricants that routinely drip from the vehicles collect in basins called “drip pans” (or “collection pans”) on the tracks in LIRR yards. After rainwater fills the drip pans, the overflow is channeled to holding vaults called “oil/water separators” where waste oil floats on a regulated water reservoir until a contractor pumps it out. In addition to these periodic pump-outs, annual equipment cleanings are scheduled to remove sludge and other sediments from the bottom of the drip pans and oil/water separators.
[16] The contract also provided $23,000 for labor involved in cleaning regulated medical waste, but that was strictly for that type of work. There are no other provisions for labor charges contained in the contract.
correct > LIRR had problems as did WEGI on the conract. If you read the entire OIG review you will see this contract was handled poorly by BOTH parties.. HOWEVER > It does show WEGI problem with overcharging runs deeper then just the 19 lawsuits mostly for hurricane Katrina cleanup. it seems overcharging and investigations are the norm with WEGI jobs? > IMO
Certain investments in Texas Oil/Gas need to be registered with Federal Securities exchange comission and or State securities board per RRC website > I wonder if UERI/FTXN had to supply any info to these entities? Here are the links and contact info >
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/og/not-reg-og-guide/ognotrrc.html
INVESTMENTS
The Federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the State Securities Board may require the registration of certain investment offers. Although some offers are exempt from registration with these agencies, you can check on registrations by contacting:
Securities and Exchange Commission 801 Cherry St., 19th Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 978-3821
State Securities Board P.O. Box 13167 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 305-8300
The State Securities Board is located at 200 East 10th St., 5th floor. The State Securities Board has an enforcement section that may be able to address your complaints regarding particular investment offers.
Additionally, corporations and limited partnerships must register with the Texas Secretary of State before lawfully conducting business in Texas. You may contact:
Secretary of State Corporations Division P.O. Box 12697 Austin, Texas 78711-2697
(512) 463-5555
The Secretary of State is located in the James Rudder Building at 1019 Brazos Street.
As with leases and royalties, the Railroad Commission cannot advise you of the soundness of a particular investment or help you recover your investment.
Certain investments in Texas Oil/Gas need to be registered with Federal Securities exchange comission and or State securities board per RRC website > I wonder if UERI/FTXN had to supply any info to these entities? Here are the links and contact info >
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/og/not-reg-og-guide/ognotrrc.html
INVESTMENTS
The Federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the State Securities Board may require the registration of certain investment offers. Although some offers are exempt from registration with these agencies, you can check on registrations by contacting:
Securities and Exchange Commission 801 Cherry St., 19th Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 978-3821
State Securities Board P.O. Box 13167 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 305-8300
The State Securities Board is located at 200 East 10th St., 5th floor. The State Securities Board has an enforcement section that may be able to address your complaints regarding particular investment offers.
Additionally, corporations and limited partnerships must register with the Texas Secretary of State before lawfully conducting business in Texas. You may contact:
Secretary of State Corporations Division P.O. Box 12697 Austin, Texas 78711-2697
(512) 463-5555
The Secretary of State is located in the James Rudder Building at 1019 Brazos Street.
As with leases and royalties, the Railroad Commission cannot advise you of the soundness of a particular investment or help you recover your investment.
WEGI OVERCHARGING is not just for Hurricane work, The LIRR Long Island Rail Road has been overcharged in excess of $600,000 in 2 seperate instances. Here is some DD into the OIG Office of Inspector General investigations.
The Trade-Winds Cost Overrun
MTA/OIG #2002-26L
http://videos.news12.com/TradeWindsCostOverrun.htm
During this investigation, we examined three types of overcharges identified by the LIRR:
· Service Charges: Contrary to the contract’s terms, Trade-Winds included a service call–out charge for every day spent pumping and cleaning oil/water separators and drip pans.
· Pump-Out Disposal Rates: Instead of charging $.25-$.45 per gallon to pump out oil/water separators, as the contract specified, Trade-Winds charged the railroad $.85 cents per gallon in most cases.
· Time and Material Charges: Contrary to the terms of the contract, Trade-Winds charged the LIRR for time and materials for oil/water separator and drip pan work.
In these three areas, we found almost $450,000 in overcharges, or 73 percent of the $613,000 billed for oil/water separators and drip pans. Of the three, time and material charges (in excess of the fixed cleaning rate) were by far the most significant, adding almost $350,000 to Trade-Winds’ invoices.[8]
Arthur Baldwin, Trade-Winds’ project manager for this contract, explained Trade-Winds’ charges.[9] He said the railroad’s new DM-30 and DE-30 diesel locomotives dropped sand onto the tracks. This, he said, made it more expensive than anticipated to maintain oil/water separators and collection pans. He also claimed that he received verbal permission from Conway to charge the railroad for labor and materials and the higher pump-out rate because of the sand problem.[10] We could not confirm this with Conway because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when we subpoenaed him. Regardless of whether or not Conway gave his permission, though, he clearly did not have actual authority to verbally approve changes.[11] In addition, any discussions or agreements made prior to execution of the contract would have been invalid.[12] The contract explicitly contained these restrictions. Trade-Winds clearly violated the terms of the contract.
MTA/OIG #2005-65L > RE: OIG released report detailing $260,000 in unsupported and erroneous charges by Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration (Trade-Winds) for the disposal of waste materials generated by LIRR
http://mtaig.state.ny.us/assets/pdf/2006%20blurbs.pdf
Strongus > The FTXN PR was very clear > UERI was a private venture owned by Jim Dial > GFCI shareholders will NOT receive any part of UERI/FTXN > I understand CEO JIM DIAL made many forward looking statements regarding these wells and GFCI but the FTXN PR spells it out pretty clearly. GFCI shareholders will receive 0.00, nada, NO dividend or even a small glimpse of of the FTXN/UERI gas wells > IT WAS ALL FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS! IMPO of the FACTS....
Cargo - In 2006 WEGI had LOSS of ($20,517,190)> Correct Mainly due to massive charges when they reworked the Laurus debt and elimination of the "derivative liability". If you read the attachments to the recent filings the impact of the derivative liability is very interesting. I will post few for the board - maybe we can come up with a survey?
I also noticed this footnote in SEC filing RE: the current Laurus debt >
Despite the elimination of the derivative liability, our results from operations will still be adversely effected in future periods by significant interest expense charges resulting from the accounting for the Laurus financing, including direct interest expense on the Note, amortization of the discount on the Note and amortization of deferred financing costs.
Cargo > WEGI is financially sick company by Key stats>
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Ends: 30-June
Most Recent Quarter (mrq): 31-Mar-07
Profitability
Profit Margin (ttm): -59.27%
Operating Margin (ttm): -60.87%
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm): -22.58%
Return on Equity (ttm): -299.39%
Income Statement
Revenue (ttm): 10.12M
Revenue Per Share (ttm): 0.294
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): -57.50%
Gross Profit (ttm): 13.77M
EBITDA (ttm): -5.25M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): -6.08M
Diluted EPS (ttm): -0.611
Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): N/A
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq): 376.68K
Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 0.01
Total Debt (mrq): 5.90M
Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 2.439
Current Ratio (mrq): 1.416
Book Value Per Share (mrq): 0.031
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): -1.26M
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): -15.95M
Abbreviation Guide: K = Thousands; M = Millions; B = Billions
mrq = Most Recent Quarter (as of 31-Mar-07)
ttm = Trailing Twelve Months (as of 31-Mar-07)
yoy = Year Over Year (as of 31-Mar-07)
lfy = Last Fiscal Year (as of 30-Jun-06)
fye = Fiscal Year Ending
1 = Data provided by Thomson; 2 = Data provided by EDGAR Online;
3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance;
4 = Data provided by Computershare; 5 = Data provided by Hemscott Americas
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WEGI.OB
Cargo - HERE ARE THE FACTS ON WEGI PAST PROFITABILITY >
2005 = less then $54,000 PROFIT
2006 = (LOSS) of 20,000,000 (20MILLION+)
We have experienced significant operating losses, including recently, and may incur losses in the future.
Future losses could adversely effect the market value of our common stock. Although we generated net income of $53,066 in our fiscal year ended June 28, 2005, we incurred net losses of ($20,517,190), ($3,535,334) and ($469,004) in our fiscal years ended June 30, 2006, June 29, 2004 and July 1, 2003, respectively. In fiscal 2006, although we had operating income of $5,301,419, we incurred a mark-to-market loss on embedded derivative liabilities of $19,373,659 and non-cash interest charges of $4,733,847. As a result of the agreements we reached with Laurus on September 29, 2006, we no longer have to apply derivative accounting. For the three months ended September 30, 2006, we had a mark-to-market gain of $15,721,986, principally driven by the decrease in our common stock price, and on September 30, 2006 our additional paid in capital was increased by $6,539,023 to reflect the extinguishment of the embedded derivative liability. Despite the elimination of the derivative liability, our results from operations will still be adversely effected in future periods by significant interest expense charges resulting from the accounting for the Laurus financing, including direct interest expense on the Note, amortization of the discount on the Note and amortization of deferred financing costs. Further, due to the lack of hurricane related work in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006 and to date in fiscal 2007, our revenues have been adversely affected, particularly in comparison to the immediately preceeding periods. For the quarters ended June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006, we had revenues of $2,552,188 and $2,483,811, respectively, as compared to $3,000,793 and $5,164,339, respectively, in the comparable prior year periods. For the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, we achieved revenues of $17,714,342 and $7,213,546, which are substantially in excess of the current revenue levels. For the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we had a loss from operations of $2,014,411. At September 30, 2006, we had stockholders’ equity of $3,933,258 and an accumulated deficit of $41,048,507. There can be no assurance that we will generate profits in the future.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
Laurus may demand that we file additional registration statements upon 45 days notice to register shares held by them in excess of the 5,395,061 shares to be registered in our next registration statement.
We are unable to predict the potential effect that sales into the market of these shares may have on the then prevailing market price of our common stock. It is likely that market sales of these shares (or the potential for these sales even if they do not actually occur) may have the effect of depressing the market price of our common stock. As a result, the potential resale and possible fluctuations in trading volume of such a substantial amount of our stock may effect our share price negatively.
If you are not an institutional investor, you may purchase our securities in this offering only if you reside within certain states and may engage in resale transactions only in those states and a limited number of other jurisdictions
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&CIK=wegi&filenum=&State=&SIC=&o...
FA > Laurus / WEGI already filed to sell 5million+ shares >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities act of 1933, check the following box.
x
The shares of common stock of Windswept covered by this prospectus may be sold from time to time by Laurus Master Fund, Ltd., the selling stockholder. This prospectus relates to up to 5,395,061 shares of common stock of Windswept which are issuable upon conversion of the principal and interest of a secured convertible term note due June 30, 2009 issued to the selling stockholder having a conversion rate of $.09 per share, subject to adjustment, and/or shares that may be issued, in lieu of cash, in payment of principal and interest on a note.
We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of our common stock by the selling stockholder.
Our common stock is quoted on Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol “WEGI.OB”.
The Offering
Issuer Windswept Environmental Group, Inc.
Outstanding common stock before offering 35,678,993 (as of January 31, 2007)
Number of shares offered for resale 5,395,061 (1)
Outstanding common stock after offering 41,074,054 (assuming all offered shares are sold)
Use of Proceeds We will not receive any proceeds from this offering.
Conversion or exercise of our outstanding convertible or other derivative securities could substantially dilute your investment and the existence of our convertible and derivative securities could negatively effect the price of our common stock.
As required by Laurus in connection with consummating our amended financing transaction, we have issued to Laurus, subject to a beneficial ownership limitation of 9.99% :
· the Note, which is convertible at $.09 per share into, approximately 19,801,944 shares of our common stock;
· options exercisable at $.0001 per share currently for 28,895,179 and 11,145,000 shares. Laurus previously acquired 1,500,000 shares in connection with its partial exercise of one of the options; and
· a warrant exercisable at $.10 per share for 13,750,000 shares.
We also have other outstanding options to purchase up to 26,806,273 shares of our common stock, which include 24,306,273 shares issuable upon exercise of options granted to our president and chief executive officer exercisable at $.01 per share with respect to 2,000,000 shares, at $.07904 per share with respect to 5,486,309 shares and at $.09 per share with respect to 15,469,964 shares. Options to purchase 1,350,000 shares issued to our president and chief executive officer are exercisable at prices between $.1875 and $.34.
The issuance of any of these shares will dilute the percentage ownership of our current shareholders. The existence of these convertible and derivative securities could negatively effect the price of our common stock.
Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
As of January 31, 2007, we had 35,678,993 shares of common stock outstanding. The registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part registers for resale 5,395,061 shares, or approximately 13.1% of our issued and outstanding common stock inclusive of such registered shares. In addition, Laurus may demand that we file additional registration statements upon 45 days notice to register shares held by them in excess of the 5,395,061 shares to be registered in our next registration statement.
We are unable to predict the potential effect that sales into the market of these shares may have on the then prevailing market price of our common stock. It is likely that market sales of these shares (or the potential for these sales even if they do not actually occur) may have the effect of depressing the market price of our common stock. As a result, the potential resale and possible fluctuations in trading volume of such a substantial amount of our stock may effect our share price negatively.
If you are not an institutional investor, you may purchase our securities in this offering only if you reside within certain states and may engage in resale transactions only in those states and a limited number of other jurisdictions
hope ALL GFCI shareholders now AGREE > UERI was a private venture owned by Jim Dial > GFCI shareholders will NOT receive any part of UERI / FTXN > I sure hope ALL shareholders can read - the PR spells it our pretty clearly. GFCI has NO, 0.00, Nada ownership of the wells.
1st Texas Natural Gas Company, Inc. Announces Acquisition of over 650 Million in Proven Natural Gas Reserves in Texas
1st Texas Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Pink Sheets:FTXN) announced today that it has acquired all of the assets of Universal Energy Resources, Inc., a private energy production company, with 208 gas drilling leases valued in excess of $650,000,000. Located in the heart of the Permian Basin, the leases are located in the 6th largest known oil and gas reserves in the world.
Universal Energy Resources will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1st Texas Natural Gas Co. Jim Dial who founded Universal Energy Resources has been recruited to head up operations of 1st Texas Natural Gas Co. with the title of President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Dial has over 25 years experience in the petroleum industry.
The 208 gas drilling leases have proven recoverable reserves of 109 Billion cubic feet of natural gas based upon an independent expert reserve report. The report was prepared in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission accounting guidelines.
Mr. Dial stated, “We began drilling in March 2007. We have now drilled 3 gas wells with 100% success. Each well was drilled to average depths of 5,000 feet in the prolific Canyon sandstone formations. The El Paso gas pipeline as well as producers pipeline intersects the property so we have immediate access to market. We have a simple game plan: Drill, drill and then drill some more. I have never believed in wildcat exploration. I believe that the best opportunities are in proven reserves that the big boys have overlooked. We have the right team in place to get the job done.”
Each well takes approximately 3-4 weeks to drill and bring on line. Additional drill rigs and crews will be brought online to complete all 208 gas drilling leases in the shortest time possible in order to take advantage of the continued high demand for natural gas.
About 1st Texas Natural Gas Co., Inc.
We are an energy production company with a portfolio of gas drilling leases in Texas. Our proven and recoverable gas reserves are valued at over $650 million. The life of our gas properties is estimated at over 30 year’s duration. When you think of "Texas gas" think of 1st Texas Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Pink Sheets:FTXN). For more information visit us at www.1stTexasNaturalGas.com.
Forward Looking Statement
The contents of this Press Release may be deemed to include forward-looking statements within the meaning of United States securities laws and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are only predictions and you should not rely on them. Actual results might differ materially from those projected in any such forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. We cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. In evaluating forward-looking statements you should consider various factors including risks inherent in the scrap metal business sector.
For 1st Texas Natural Gas Company, Inc.:
Investor Relations
Bentley Communications
Trevor Bentley, 888-818-8738
bentleycomm@gmail.com
OK? SO You want me to reply to my own post? OK > I dont know why u want me to reply to this post but here you go. Happy Posting >
Here is the original post 2902 - per your request >
WEGI traded less then $8k in total equity today >
Time & Sales
Price Size Exch Time
0.18 500 OBB 14:07:50
0.17 1000 OBB 13:46:06
0.17 6000 OBB 13:39:04
0.18 200 OBB 11:18:16
0.18 5000 OBB 11:18:00
0.18 171 OBB 10:49:55
0.199 2375 OBB 10:39:25
0.185 5000 OBB 10:04:12
0.18 5000 OBB 10:04:00
0.18 10000 OBB 10:03:31
0.18 4700 OBB 09:51:35
Chevdawg > Have you read this report ? I think these are related to the lawsuits in NY state court.
The Trade-Winds Cost Overrun
MTA/OIG #2002-26L
http://videos.news12.com/TradeWindsCostOverrun.htm
This is not to be confused with MTA/OIG #2005-65L > RE: OIG released report detailing $260,000 in unsupported and erroneous charges by Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration (Trade-Winds) for the disposal of waste materials generated by LIRR
http://mtaig.state.ny.us/assets/pdf/2006%20blurbs.pdf
This is totally different report > MTA/OIG #2002-26L >
This predates the above few months. It appears the LIRR and WEGI have had contract problems. Looks like to me BOTH sides had problems. I found this after reading some of your posts tonight. I will try to find some time to answer your O/S question. Thanks
Here is what OIG/LIRR outlines in MTA/OIG #2002-26L >
The Trade-Winds Cost Overrun
Analysis of Trade-Winds’ Overcharges
During this investigation, we examined three types of overcharges identified by the LIRR:
· Service Charges: Contrary to the contract’s terms, Trade-Winds included a service call–out charge for every day spent pumping and cleaning oil/water separators and drip pans.
· Pump-Out Disposal Rates: Instead of charging $.25-$.45 per gallon to pump out oil/water separators, as the contract specified, Trade-Winds charged the railroad $.85 cents per gallon in most cases.
· Time and Material Charges: Contrary to the terms of the contract, Trade-Winds charged the LIRR for time and materials for oil/water separator and drip pan work.
In these three areas, we found almost $450,000 in overcharges, or 73 percent of the $613,000 billed for oil/water separators and drip pans. Of the three, time and material charges (in excess of the fixed cleaning rate) were by far the most significant, adding almost $350,000 to Trade-Winds’ invoices.[8]
Arthur Baldwin, Trade-Winds’ project manager for this contract, explained Trade-Winds’ charges.[9] He said the railroad’s new DM-30 and DE-30 diesel locomotives dropped sand onto the tracks. This, he said, made it more expensive than anticipated to maintain oil/water separators and collection pans. He also claimed that he received verbal permission from Conway to charge the railroad for labor and materials and the higher pump-out rate because of the sand problem.[10] We could not confirm this with Conway because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when we subpoenaed him. Regardless of whether or not Conway gave his permission, though, he clearly did not have actual authority to verbally approve changes.[11] In addition, any discussions or agreements made prior to execution of the contract would have been invalid.[12] The contract explicitly contained these restrictions. Trade-Winds clearly violated the terms of the contract.
In short, Trade-Winds overcharged the LIRR for labor and materials and call-out charges for oil/water separator cleanings. If the firm believed that unforeseen field conditions, such as sand on the tracks and in the collection pans and oil/water separators, warranted a change order, it should have obtained a written change order from the LIRR as the contract required. Simply changing its billing method based on Conway’s purported verbal assurances was not contractually permitted. Nevertheless, given the internal control environment, it was sufficient to get the invoice paid.
I have not spoken to WEGI transfer agent. If you want me to confirm or deny your post please give me couple days to contact them and get some more info. I am not sure what it matters. The SEC filings outline Laurus has a 5million PLUS share offering in the market, it has been declared efective, PLUS WEGI has millions of shares under the O/S in options and warrants, over 30 million options are at .001. I dont know what you are so defensive about, these are direct from the SEC filings, I dont make them up and I cant change them. Please no need to get personal, it is all in the filings.
WEGI has milions of shares under the O/S PLUS Laurus has current offering in market right now and for sure will have another one shortly, per this filing. Here is the info on WEGI true share structure and risks associated. IMO With the low volume and huge amount of shares ready to convert it is dangerous to get caught long WEGI with boat load of shares. Not a bash, just common sense IMO....
Conversion or exercise of our outstanding convertible or other derivative securities could substantially dilute your investment and the existence of our convertible and derivative securities could negatively effect the price of our common stock.
As required by Laurus in connection with consummating our amended financing transaction, we have issued to Laurus, subject to a beneficial ownership limitation of 9.99% :
· the Note, which is convertible at $.09 per share into, approximately 19,801,944 shares of our common stock;
· options exercisable at $.0001 per share currently for 28,895,179 and 11,145,000 shares. Laurus previously acquired 1,500,000 shares in connection with its partial exercise of one of the options; and
· a warrant exercisable at $.10 per share for 13,750,000 shares.
We also have other outstanding options to purchase up to 26,806,273 shares of our common stock, which include 24,306,273 shares issuable upon exercise of options granted to our president and chief executive officer exercisable at $.01 per share with respect to 2,000,000 shares, at $.07904 per share with respect to 5,486,309 shares and at $.09 per share with respect to 15,469,964 shares. Options to purchase 1,350,000 shares issued to our president and chief executive officer are exercisable at prices between $.1875 and $.34.
The issuance of any of these shares will dilute the percentage ownership of our current shareholders. The existence of these convertible and derivative securities could negatively effect the price of our common stock.
Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
As of January 31, 2007, we had 35,678,993 shares of common stock outstanding. The registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part registers for resale 5,395,061 shares, or approximately 13.1% of our issued and outstanding common stock inclusive of such registered shares. In addition, Laurus may demand that we file additional registration statements upon 45 days notice to register shares held by them in excess of the 5,395,061 shares to be registered in our next registration statement.
We are unable to predict the potential effect that sales into the market of these shares may have on the then prevailing market price of our common stock. It is likely that market sales of these shares (or the potential for these sales even if they do not actually occur) may have the effect of depressing the market price of our common stock. As a result, the potential resale and possible fluctuations in trading volume of such a substantial amount of our stock may effect our share price negatively.
If you are not an institutional investor, you may purchase our securities in this offering only if you reside within certain states and may engage in resale transactions only in those states and a limited number of other jurisdictions.
The “manual exemption” for secondary trading of securities to be resold by the selling stockholder under this registration statement is currently available by virtue of our recent listing in Standard and Poor’s. If you are not an “institutional investor,” you will need to be a resident of certain jurisdictions to purchase our securities in this offering. The definition of an “institutional investor” varies from state to state but generally includes financial institutions, broker-dealers, banks, insurance companies and other qualified entities. In order to prevent resale transactions in violation of states’ securities laws, you may engage in resale transactions only in the states and in other jurisdictions in which an applicable exemption is available or a registration application has been filed and accepted. This restriction on resale may limit your ability to resell the securities purchased in this offering and may impact the price of our shares.
12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manual exemption permits a security to be distributed in a particular state without being registered if the issuer of that security has a listing for that security in a securities manual recognized by the state. Furthermore, the manual exemption is a non-issuer exemption restricted to secondary trading transactions. Most of the accepted manuals are those published in Standard and Poor’s (in which we are listed), Mergent Investor Relation Services, Fitch’s Investment Service, and Best’s Insurance Reports, and many states expressly recognize these manuals. A smaller number of states declare that they “recognize securities manuals” but do not specify the recognized manuals. The following states do not have any provisions and therefore do not expressly recognize the manual exemption: Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. If you reside in one of these states and are not an institutional investor, you generally will not be permitted to purchase shares in this offering unless there is an available exemption or we register the shares covered by this prospectus in such states. You will be permitted to purchase shares in this offering in New York as we have taken the steps required by the state to allow for the secondary trading of securities under this registration statement.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
WEGI traded less then $8k in total equity today >
Time & Sales
Price Size Exch Time
0.18 500 OBB 14:07:50
0.17 1000 OBB 13:46:06
0.17 6000 OBB 13:39:04
0.18 200 OBB 11:18:16
0.18 5000 OBB 11:18:00
0.18 171 OBB 10:49:55
0.199 2375 OBB 10:39:25
0.185 5000 OBB 10:04:12
0.18 5000 OBB 10:04:00
0.18 10000 OBB 10:03:31
0.18 4700 OBB 09:51:35
Please tell me were my post says specifically one single person, and even if it did what does it matter? The POINT is WEGI is trading super low dollar totals daily, large players, be it individuals, hedge funds, financeers, etc.... are NOT going to take a large position in a stock like WEGI that lacks liquidity IMPO.
Here are Domestic PinkSheets only TOP Dollars traded yesterday > $100k traded in a session is NOT a lot and it is surely NOT a lot for large players or hedge funds. That is for sure >
http://www.pinksheets.com/marketactivity/dollar_volume_leaders.jsp?Shortlist=&Prefix=ps_all
DOLLAR VOLUME LEADERS
(Note: this data is as of previous business day)
Symbol Company Price $ Volume
CPNLQ CALPINE CORP 3.62 > 40,177,406
NAVZ NAVISTAR INTL CORP 60.85 > 29,114,778
CMVT COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY INC 20.52 > 13,237,103
KEGS KEY ENERGY SERVICES INC 18.57 > 13,027,245
DPHIQ DELPHI CORP 2.33 > 12,164,935
ABVT ABOVENET INC 61 > 7,379,292
LUTHP LUCENT TECHS C/T I 7.75% 1010 > 6,018,590
IBCIQ INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP 2.65 > 2,754,026
GEGQQ GLOBAL POWER EQUIPMENT GR 1.94 > 2,732,911
PELE PRO ELITE INC 15 > 2,251,500
NYFX NYFIX INC 7.21 > 1,729,326
VTSS VITESSE SEMICONDUCTR CORP 1.15 > 1,576,059
TUBR TUBEAROO INC 2.25 > 1,567,215
DCNAQ DANA CORP 1.97 > 1,406,153
OCTL OCTILLION CORP NEW 1.69 > 1,294,875
WLDA WORLD AIR HOLDINGS INC 12 > 1,250,448
WSDT WISDOMTREE INVTS INC 5.1 > 1,153,166
PCMC PRICE COMMUNS CORP 22.28 > 1,034,572
BQTG BIOQUEST TECHS INC 0.49 > 857,660
NORSB NORTH ST TELECOMM CORP B 83 > 802,610
HKFIQ HANCOCK FABRICS INC 2.69 > 799,890
NNRF NUCON-RF INC 5.45 > 719,264
IYXI INYX INC 2.48 > 681,871
AITP AMER ITALIAN PASTA CO A 9.65 > 665,435
BFTH BALLY TOTAL FTNS HLDG CRP 0.5 > 549,090
AURC AURUS CORP 0.064 > 539,505
POWI POWER INTEGRATIONS INC 25.8 > 503,848
AESRO AES TR VII 6 PFD 49.75 > 450,337
IPXL IMPAX LABS INC 11.49 > 443,503
CMKT CAPITAL MARKETS TECHS INC 1.05 > 421,575
CNHC CHINA HEALTH MGMT CRP NEW 0.76 > 380,229
DORLN DORAL FINCL CORP PFD C 17.75 > 368,650
SCRYY SCOR ADR 2.61 > 365,828
CYRX CRYOPORT INC 1.73 > 361,997
HAMP HAMPSHIRE GROUP LTD 16.1 > 350,674
DHBT DHB INDUS INC 5.2 > 348,062
VRNT VERINT SYS INC 30.75 > 343,816
NATR NATURES SUNSHINE PROD INC 11.75 > 337,202
GBRC GLOBAL RESOURCE CORP 1.75 > 331,251
WTVI WI-FI TV INC NEW 0.0022 > 320,176
GNSM GENSYM CORP 2.15 > 311,797
PQES PROQUEST CO 9.6 > 297,840
TERN TERAYON COMMUN SYS INC 1.75 > 294,665
ALSC ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CP 4.91 > 258,688
GFET GULF ETHANOL CORP 2.48 > 257,833
HTRE H3 ENTERPRISES INC 0.155 > 252,303
ESCL ESCALA GROUP INC 2.4 > 245,825
MPAA MOTORCAR PARTS OF AMER 12.75 > 225,930
PBLS PHOENIX ASSC LD SYNDICATE 0.013 > 200,525
RGFC R & G FINCL CORP B 3.75 > 195,510
Take a look at most active lists daily. You will find many equities that trade well over $100k worth of equity in a single session. Many MANY trade well over 1 million in equity per session. If you think hedges and big players wont play 100k in otcbb u need to look at some of these daily share and dollar volumes on the OTCBB - lots of big money rolling into some of these stocks daily.
Here is YESTERDAYS TOP list by dollar volume traded. MANY OTCBB trade large dollar volumes daily, UNLIKE WEGI.
http://www.pinksheets.com/marketactivity/dollar_volume_leaders.jsp?Shortlist=&Prefix=ps_all
Symbol Company Price Pct Chg $ Volume Share Volume
CPNLQ CALPINE CORP 3.6200 +0.28 40,177,406 11,098,731
JSAIY J SAINSBURY PLC S/ADR NEW 46.0500 +1.61 35,780,758 776,998
UUPLY UNITED UTILITIES PLC ADR 27.9500 -5.57 34,841,883 1,246,579
NAVZ NAVISTAR INTL CORP 60.8500 +1.59 29,114,778 478,468
MSBHY MITSUBISHI CORP S/ADR 50.9000 -3.05 19,400,688 381,153
LUKOY LUKOIL HOLDING CO SP/ADR 78.7000 +1.16 15,980,743 203,059
NSRGY NESTLE S.A SPONS ADR 92.3500 +0.60 14,909,076 161,441
CMVT COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY INC 20.5200 -0.39 13,237,103 645,083
KEGS KEY ENERGY SERVICES INC 18.5700 +1.75 13,027,245 701,521
DPHIQ DELPHI CORP 2.3300 -5.28 12,164,935 5,221,002
SMFJY SUMITOMO MITSUI FINCL GRP 9.3500 +1.08 11,312,808 1,209,926
BAIRY BRITISH ARWYS PLC DP RCPT 86.0000 +2.50 8,191,930 95,255
RHHBY ROCHE HOLDING LTD ADR 86.8000 +1.17 7,401,870 85,275
ABVT ABOVENET INC 61.0000 -0.81 7,379,292 120,972
LUTHP LUCENT TECHS C/T I 7.75% 1010.0000 -0.98 6,018,590 5,959
WMMVY WAL-MART DE MEX V SP/ADR 37.6500 +1.07 5,059,558 134,384
OGZPY OAO GAZPROM SPONS GDR 40.9000 +1.49 4,794,789 117,232
CAIFY CENTRAIS ELEC BRAS S/ADR 14.5700 +0.14 3,967,309 272,293
NTDOY NINTENDO CO LTD ADR 45.5500 -0.76 3,445,129 75,634
PBEGF PETROBANK ENERGY & RES 24.4391 -1.42 3,185,343 130,338
ACMUY ACOM CO LTD S/ADR 8.9000 -1.11 3,118,133 350,352
NABZY NATL AUSTRALIA BK LTD ADR 168.7500 -2.09 2,867,569 16,993
SXRZF URANIUM ONE INC 12.9228 +3.80 2,811,329 217,548
IBCIQ INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORP 2.6500 -3.64 2,754,026 1,039,255
GEGQQ GLOBAL POWER EQUIPMENT GR 1.9400 -8.06 2,732,911 1,408,717
CAIGY ELECTROBRAS-CENTRA PR ADR 14.1000 -3.90 2,501,086 177,382
HUWHY HUTCHISON WHAMPOA LTD ADR 50.3000 +1.00 2,395,437 47,623
BNPQY BNP PARIBAS SPONS ADR 58.5500 -1.01 2,365,361 40,399
BAESY BAE SYSTEMS PLC SP/ADR 33.4000 +2.14 2,362,950 70,747
PELE PRO ELITE INC 15.0000 +25.00 2,251,500 150,100
MGAFF MEGA URANIUM LTD ORD 5.0188 +0.92 2,211,675 440,678
HENOY HENKEL KGAA PFD SHS ADR 51.0500 -1.73 2,106,221 41,258
NILSY JSC MMC NRLSK NICKL S/ADR 218.8500 +0.14 2,029,834 9,275
EBKDY ERSTE BK DER OEST SPR ADR 38.3500 -2.17 2,012,953 52,489
SCGLY SOCIETE GENERLE FRNCE ADR 37.2500 -0.27 1,982,669 53,226
SGGGY SGL CARBON AKTNGLLSFT ADS 13.3000 -0.37 1,921,238 144,454
DNPCY DAI NIPPON PRINTNG CO ADR 29.1500 +3.00 1,830,941 62,811
FORSY FORTIS NL S/ADR 41.3000 -0.12 1,752,813 42,441
SHCAY SHARP CORP ADR 19.1000 -0.52 1,741,863 91,197
NYFX NYFIX INC 7.2100 +5.26 1,729,326 239,851
EXPGY EXPERIAN GROUP LTD S/GDR 12.4500 +2.47 1,682,493 135,140
TSCDY TESCO PLC SPN/ADR 25.8500 -0.39 1,620,717 62,697
AIQUY L'AIR LIQUIDE ADR 25.1000 +1.01 1,620,607 64,566
FOLGF FALCON OIL&GAS LTD 1.6685 -18.61 1,605,064 961,980
HBOOY HBOS PLC S/ADR 19.9000 -1.00 1,598,945 80,349
VTSS VITESSE SEMICONDUCTR CORP 1.1500 +0.00 1,576,059 1,370,486
TUBR TUBEAROO INC 2.2500 -6.64 1,567,215 696,540
PMSEY PROMISE CO LTD UNSPON ADR 14.9500 -2.29 1,527,083 102,146
SGAMY SEGA SAMMY HLDGS S/ADR 4.1000 +0.00 1,491,391 363,754
TELNY TELENOR ASA SPONS ADR 57.3500 -0.17 1,428,646 24,911
Amen > It seems no matter if we go up or down we have a "reversal" of some sort from chev > confirmed by....blah blah blah... what WEGI needs is VOLUME > When was last time WEGI traded $100k worth of equity in a single session? NO big time players are going to move in on a stock they cant get out of, imagine if you had $100k of WEGI and you needed to sell fast. The price would tank , you would struggle to SELL $100K worth of shares in 1-2 days, Buying is easy part, Laurus has 5million share offering at .09 for sale under the market. Selling and lack of liquidity is a problem lately, that and of course WEGI is very sick financially IMO.
Good post ldriver >
Posted by: Longdriver98
In reply to: chevdawg18 who wrote msg# 2877 Date:6/27/2007 10:41:09 PM
Post #of 2889
chevy - that bidwhack was for over 70k of shares; you have been pumping this for a while. I think it would be best if you refrain. You have been wrong on this reversal every single time.
lower lows lower highs > today Low 0.175 High 0.185.eom
You have to consider Laurus currently has an offering in the market. They are selling shares for UNDER market.
WINDSWEPT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
5,395,061 Shares of Common Stock
The shares of common stock of Windswept covered by this prospectus may be sold from time to time by Laurus Master Fund, Ltd., the selling stockholder. This prospectus relates to up to 5,395,061 shares of common stock of Windswept which are issuable upon conversion of the principal and interest of a secured convertible term note due June 30, 2009 issued to the selling stockholder having a conversion rate of $.09 per share, subject to adjustment, and/or shares that may be issued, in lieu of cash, in payment of principal and interest on a note.
We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of our common stock by the selling stockholder.
Our common stock is quoted on Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol “WEGI.OB”.
The shares of common stock covered by this prospectus may be sold through broker-dealers or in privately negotiated transactions in which commissions and other fees may be charged. These fees, if any, will be paid by the selling stockholder. We will not be paying any underwriting discounts or commissions in this offering. We have no agreement with any broker-dealer with respect to these shares, and we are unable to estimate the commissions that may be paid in any given transaction. For a more complete description of the methods of distribution that the selling stockholder may use, see “Plan of Distribution” beginning on page 22.
You should read this prospectus carefully before you invest in our common stock offered hereby.
The securities offered by this prospectus involve a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the factors described under the heading “Risk Factors” beginning on page 6 of this prospectus.
The Offering
Issuer Windswept Environmental Group, Inc.
Outstanding common stock before offering 35,678,993 (as of January 31, 2007)
Number of shares offered for resale 5,395,061 (1)
Outstanding common stock after offering 41,074,054 (assuming all offered shares are sold)
Use of Proceeds We will not receive any proceeds from this offering.
If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities act of 1933, check the following box.
x
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
FTXN stock for sale at discount to market >
http://www.forbes-york.com/service.html
Universal Energy Resources Inc. Info:
Official website
www.UniversalEnergy
Resources.com
Client documents
-Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner
We at Forbes & York have made available a very unique way of creating wealth for YOU; imagine being able to purchase stocks from publicly trading companies at a discount to the current market price.
This is how institutions and large investors have built wealth in the past. Forbes & York Investments negotiates similar conditions as banks and very large investors and then breaks down blocks of stock making it available to individual investors, such as YOU.
Why will any publicly traded company sell their stock at a discount to market?
Because it allows them to create liquidity at an early stage with investors like you, who are not in for a short term profit, but willing to invest into the company for at least one year or even longer. This gives the company capital for growth and time to become a profitable business, resulting in a high stock price. The end result is that YOU, the individual investor, now has ownership in a growing and emerging publicly traded company. Whether you apply the discount as a risk leveler or profit enhancer, either way we at F&Y create a win/win scenario for your investment strategy. Our agreement allows you to sell this stock after I year. However, we encourage all our investors to consider a long term investment strategy holding on to your stock for 2 years or longer to give your investment in these emerging companies the best possible chance to work for you, the individual investor.
I found this on Investors Hub NEW >
Reverse Split Repeat Offenders (RS/RO)
Posted by: sublime
In reply to: None Date:6/13/2007 1:48:04 PM
Post #of 4666
6/14/2007 UCNR 1-200 R/S ** Unicorn Restaurants Inc Common Stock FTXN 1st Texas Natural Gas Company, Inc. Common Stock
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20421547&txt2find=ftxn+
Who is LoneStar Holding? LSGH
http://www.lonestarholding.com/project.htm
Seems a LOT of pinks make claim to this Ozona Gas property? WHO really owns what? never disclosed.......
ENERGY
South Texas Natural Gas Projects
US Energy Holdings, Inc. owns the mineral rights to 9,500 acres in Crockett County, Texas. The property is located approximately 25 miles south of Ozona and 75 miles north of Del Rio, Texas. The "Canyon Sandstone" gas wells located on this ranch are part of the large prolific Adams-Baggett Canyon Sandstone Field.
US Energy Holding's most valuable resource is our wealth of successful experience from a highly qualified team of seasoned professionals bringing over 100 years of experience with both Major and Independent companies to the exploitation, exploration and production of long-lived, high rate of return, Global reserves.
By exhibiting our creativity and balancing a tolerance for risk along with a relentless pursuit of efficiency, we maintain a corporate culture that values originality and invention while developing essential, long-term relationships via honesty, trust and integrity.
US Energy Holdings, Inc. is was proud to announce that as of Friday, June 23rd, 2006, the contract for the Crockett County Pipeline has been signed and completed. US Energy Holdings now looks to move forward with the onset of drilling our first wells. A date will be announced at a later time.
"Things are moving along very smoothly now," states Mr. Eldridge, "We are now looking ahead to the drilling of our first wells which should all be excellent producers."
Pictures of the project can be found HERE
noproblemSTEVEO! GLAD I COULD HELP!.eom
WEGI accounts receivable is in lawyers hands, they already have been forced to disclaimer a few million of it as doubtful to collect and with growing lawyer fees time loss on the money, this money is not growing, and it is NOT available for an aquisition or to even pay the mailman - it is ALL tied in court systems, lawyers, etc... WEGI has 7.5million tied up in LAWSUITS, Now what is the total A/R for WEGI?
Here is the info on the The 7.5million from the 19 lawsuits > PER THE FILING >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
______
PAGE 6
CONTINGENCIES - The Company is a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits, including those described in the Notes to the Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which it is seeking to collect amounts it believes are owed to it by customers, included in its accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to its scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
___
PAGE 20 >
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are a plaintiff in approximately 19 lawsuits claiming an aggregate of approximately $7,500,000 pursuant to which we are seeking to collect amounts we believe are owed to us by customers that are included in our accounts receivable, primarily with respect to modifications to our scope of work. The defendants in these actions have asserted counterclaims for an aggregate of approximately $1,500,000.
WEGI will need cash very soon. Cash for interest and taxes was over 300k last quarter - they had only 377k cash on hand end of period.
CASH – END OF PERIOD $ 376,680
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest $ 331,665
Income taxes $ 14,587
Page 4
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
This does not include payroll or cost of goods.
IMO WEGI needs cash
The announced aquisition along with new cash - WEGI / Laurus need to make a new deal on NEW Shares. I dont see any other way. Opinions always welcome.
I would like to see a " SURVEY "Yes thats is what we need to do have a survey :)
Happy Posting.
Laurus is a large seller of OTCBB stocks, here is mostly recent list of filings Laurus Master Fund is associated with > Laurus is WEGI #1 share holder.
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1189294&View=Relationships&List=O#Owner
47 "Owner" Relationships (where the security "Issuer" is...)
Filing or "Issuer"
First Filing Last Filing Relationship Subject Company or Serial Company
8/4/2005 2/14/2007 SC 13G 360 Global Wine Co [ formerly Knightsbridge Fine Wines Inc ]
4/22/2003 2/14/2007 SC 13D Acorn Factor/Inc [ formerly Data Systems & Software Inc ]
1/8/2007 2/14/2007 SC 13G Biodelivery Sciences International Inc [ formerly Mas Acquisition XXIII Corp ]
4/21/2005 2/14/2006 SC 13G Catalyst Lighting Group Inc [ formerly Wentworth III Inc ]
2/12/2007 SC 13G Centurion Gold Holdings Inc [ formerly Golf Product Technologies Inc ]
3/12/2007 SC 13G Conversion Services International Inc [ formerly LCS Golf Inc ]
11/10/2004 2/9/2005 SC 13G Cycle Country Accessories Corp
6/30/2004 10/21/2004 4 Cycle Country Accessories Corp
6/30/2004 7/2/2004 3 Cycle Country Accessories Corp
6/30/2004 7/2/2004 SC 13D Cycle Country Accessories Corp
1/19/2007 SC 13G Digital Recorders Inc
5/9/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Dynamic Health Products Inc [ formerly Nu Wave Health Products Inc ]
5/18/2007 SC 13G Icf Corp [ formerly Comc Inc ]
1/8/2007 2/14/2007 SC 13G Implant Sciences Corp
12/22/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Jagged Peak/Inc [ formerly Absolute Glass Protection Inc ]
1/12/2006 2/9/2007 SC 13G Jmar Technologies Inc [ formerly Jmar Industries Inc ]
4/6/2007 SC 13G Kitty Hawk Inc
8/2/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Lattice INC [ formerly Science Dynamics Corp ]
2/25/2003 SC 13D Lmic Inc [ formerly Cheshire Distributors Inc ]
4/6/2007 SC 13G Micro Component Technology Inc
2/14/2007 SC 13G Miscor Group/LTD [ formerly Magnetech Integrated Services Corp ]
1/5/2007 2/14/2007 SC 13G Modtech Holdings Inc
2/2/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G National Investment Managers Inc [ formerly Fast Eddie Racing Stables Inc ]
2/14/2007 SC 13G Netfabric Holdings/Inc [ formerly Houston Operating Co ]
7/12/2005 2/14/2007 SC 13G New Century Energy Corp [ formerly Vertica Software Inc/CA ]
1/8/2007 2/14/2007 SC 13G Numerex Corp/PA
2/2/2006 2/3/2006 4 Riviera Tool Co [ formerly Riviera Die & Tool Inc ]
2/2/2006 2/3/2006 SC 13G Riviera Tool Co [ formerly Riviera Die & Tool Inc ]
2/2/2006 3 Riviera Tool Co [ formerly Riviera Die & Tool Inc ]
10/3/2006 10/4/2006 4 Secure Alliance Holdings Corp [ formerly Tidel Technologies Inc ]
1/17/2006 10/4/2006 SC 13D Secure Alliance Holdings Corp [ formerly Tidel Technologies Inc ]
1/17/2006 3 Secure Alliance Holdings Corp [ formerly Tidel Technologies Inc ]
12/3/2004 SC 13G Secure Alliance Holdings Corp [ formerly Tidel Technologies Inc ]
8/2/2005 2/14/2006 SC 13G Secured Digital Applications Inc [ formerly Digital Broadband Networks Inc ]
5/27/2005 2/14/2006 SC 13G Sequiam Corp [ formerly Wedge Net Experts Inc ]
2/6/2007 SC 13G Small World Kids Inc [ formerly Savon Team Sports Inc ]
11/15/2005 2/14/2007 SC 13G Spacedev Inc [ formerly Pegasus Development Group Inc ]
2/16/2007 SC 13G Stonepath Group Inc [ formerly Net Value Holdings Inc ]
3/9/2007 SC 13G Thinkpath Inc [ formerly Thinkpath Com Inc ]
1/27/2005 2/14/2007 SC 13G Thomas Equipment/Inc [ formerly Maxim Mortgage Corp ]
6/16/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Titan Global Holdings/Inc [ formerly Ventures National Inc ]
12/29/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Trueyou/COM
2/9/2005 SC 13G Utek Corp
1/8/2007 2/14/2007 SC 13G Verso Technologies Inc [ formerly Eltrax Systems Inc ]
6/15/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Vertical Health Solutions Inc
10/10/2006 2/14/2007 SC 13G Windswept Environmental Group Inc [ formerly Comprehensive Environmental Systems Inc ]
10/18/2005 2/14/2007 SC 13G YTB International/Inc [ formerly Rezconnect Technologies Inc ]
Laurus is SELLING 5 Million .085 - they are capped out at 9.9% o/s of WEGI > they and need to sell shares. register more, sell more shares, register more, lend more money, sell more shares, Laurus will SELL WEGI for long time if they can. Now that is how I personally see things happening, its just IMO. Lets hope they dont sell large chunk, the light volume will tank share price IMPO.
WEGI is not healthy financially - does Laurus believe and lend them 10 million or more? WEGI needs it, especially for an aquisition, how is WEGI going to make an aquisition of any size, as small as this one is, they cant afford it right now, can you imagine WEGI NOT selling shares to "fund operations"
Here are the filings with current debt of 5.9million >
The diluted loss per share for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2007 excludes from the calculation 79,996,452 shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants and 25,395,710 shares issuable upon the conversion of convertible securities, respectively.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
The Offering
Issuer Windswept Environmental Group, Inc.
Outstanding common stock before offering 35,678,993 (as of January 31, 2007)
Number of shares offered for resale 5,395,061 (1)
Outstanding common stock after offering 41,074,054 (assuming all offered shares are sold)
Use of Proceeds We will not receive any proceeds from this offering.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
stevo51 >
We are dependent on the incurrence of large projects.
Due to the nature of the services we offer, we generate most of our revenues from new customers. We cannot anticipate whether we will be able to replace our revenues with revenues from new projects in future periods. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, our projects in the areas damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma accounted for 56% of our revenues. We had substantially completed our work in these areas by the third quarter of fiscal 2006. Reflecting our emphasis on hurricane-related work, our revenues during fiscal 2006 decreased from $17,714,342 in the second quarter to $7,213,546 in the third quarter to $2,552,188 in the fourth quarter. Our revenues for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 were $2,483,811 and we currently expect unfavorable revenue comparisons for the second quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to the comparable period of fiscal 2006. We are not sure when and if we will be able to find other similar favorable business.
Page 7 >
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
I believe you are referring to the HUGE volume of warrants and options underlying the current O/S? > Or are you referring to the offering Laurus has filed with SEC to sell 5 millions shares at $.085 in February 2007? Here are the links to the filings >
The diluted loss per share for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2007 excludes from the calculation 79,996,452 shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants and 25,395,710 shares issuable upon the conversion of convertible securities, respectively.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407027666/v076122_10q.htm
The Offering
Issuer Windswept Environmental Group, Inc.
Outstanding common stock before offering 35,678,993 (as of January 31, 2007)
Number of shares offered for resale 5,395,061 (1)
Outstanding common stock after offering 41,074,054 (assuming all offered shares are sold)
Use of Proceeds We will not receive any proceeds from this offering.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814915/000114420407006068/v064851_s1a.htm
Do you read this board? It is like hurricane central here - the board is 90% weather reports annotated with "!" exclamation points at the slightest formation thousands of miles away, this board plots every cloud with penny stock dollar signs in their eyes hoping for a major monster storm to level a US city so they can make a quick buck on a hurricane hitting the USA.