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.
what's your definition of quite a few shares?
345K out of 2.7mil? the rest traded between 0015-0019
looks like wrong board?
based on this 1/5/2010 PR is Anna still involved or not
http://www.meridian.co.kr/eng/new.htm
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64850058
I don't know anything about the area...but that post seems to give some statistics
I was responding to this part of your post
"What's also sad is that the smaller biomass plants are owned by huge foreign companies who are basically looking to squash a US-owned competitor."
does Susanville have a French company in the business arrangement?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63800581&txt2find=french
"The sellers of the Susanville plant are Renegy, Inc., an entity controlled by Robert M. Worsley, founder and former Chief Executive of SkyMall, Inc., and Nature Energies, Inc., whose ultimate parent is Hanalei Renewables, a successful French renewable energy company. Both companies will become equity holders in Laidlaw Energy and will be issued a new class of preferred shares."
Jon Edwards wasn't the problem here.....read the words in article after article. It was the smaller biomass plants. What does Jon Edwards have to do with that?
and say what? you want to make money from the stock?
"They are out of the partial payment made to LLEG"
if that payment was made conditional on the successful start of project they may not be entitled
to that payment
Foes kill plan for Berlin power plant
By GARRY RAYNO
New Hampshire Union Leader
Published Jul 3, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Jul 2, 2011) ShareThis
BERLIN — Developers of a proposed wood-burning power plant in Berlin say financial uncertainty created by opponents has killed the project.
Berlin Station would have been Berlin's largest property taxpayer.
State Sen. John Gallus, R-Berlin, said, “This is a terrible, terrible blow to the North Country and the city of Berlin. We've been planning on this and hoping it would come to fruition.”
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110703/NEWS15/707039975
what's in it for them to back off when you read this
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64850058
ly | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read Post New Msg Next 100 | Previous | Next
CTTC
Share
Sunday, July 03, 2011 9:38:07 AM
Re: now invest post# 98176 Post # of 98187
I called my contact at PSNH and she said half the small generators have agreed not to proceed but half haven't. She says the governor is involved and thinks the announcement by Cate Street is just a threat to force the rest to fall in line.
With all due respect Nowinvest, its not just the small generators complaining but the towns where they reside. Don't forget the "city" of Berlin only has 9,000 or so inhabitants while the six towns taken in total have as many people affected. These towns have just as much political influence as Berlin. Each one of these towns will lose a big chunk of their tax base and 20 jobs if the small plants close. Secondly, many of the truckers who haul chips don't want the small generators to shut down. Most of these operations are in easy to get to locations while Berlin is isolated especially in tourist season by the blockage in north Conway. The logging operations now have the choice of where to drop off their chips. If the Berlin plant becomes "the last man standing" that choice is gone. Being LLEG stockholders we tend to see only our side and not the others.
"Hampered by legal wrangling, the developers could not secure financing to continue the project,"
when did they find this out?
how long I wonder did Laidlaw Energy (LLEG) know this was heading in this direction? Did people wake up on June 30 and say we don't have an agreement? or were there signs before that and if yes, how long before that? If this doesn't go through how does this impact New Bedford, Susanville etc? If it doesn't go thru does Laidlaw return any deposits on the sale of the equity if they got any?
again not a stock expert but if 700mil were given to them it would not be a NEW ISSUE....but I know you know that. I think the conversions could be set up with future common stock values in mind....example a 1 for 1000 r/s would create a 3 mil authorized or 8mil if based on the 8bil shares in the previous scenario...if they are well on their way to implementing their business plan that could be a lucrative pps to convert to....but as you can clearly see and this is what my entire conversation has surrounded the # of shares right now with this company both existing and planned (Susanville) would to me NOT be in the benefit of the common shareholder at all....that's my opinion
2.4 bil represents 30% and that's equal to 8bil shares. So 8 bil may be the current amount needed to satisfy the 10mil convertible preferred along with the 2.4bil? And then you need to know if the NEW ISSUE for Susanville has convertible rights and if yes, what? That would add to the 8bil shares...
now that's my math......I hope a math expert comes up and agrees or corrects this scenario....
I'll put the scenario out that says currently they need 8 billion shares to satisfy the a/s and the mgnt convertible preferred and if Susanville is a convertible they will need more based on that convertible rate. It's just my understanding of what 70% fully diluted of X would represent since we're 30% of x and ours is 2.4bil. Their 365mil would be in the 2.4bil....and the 95mil option to common would have to be factored in
I see what you are saying....hard to tell.
were the ones out in March audited?
i'm just reading them now but I did find one piece of info i was looking for
"Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc. (Ticker Symbol “LLEG”), announced today that it had 2010 net income of $2,441,892 on revenues of $4,135,055. LLEG generated revenues from both management fees and partial compensation from the sale of certain project holdings in 2010. "
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60172312
don't know Rock....
that statement was from their website
"Insider Ownership: Taking into account all classes of equity securities, management currently owns approximately 70% of the Company's equity securities on a fully diluted basis."
says it all.....based on current share (all classes) when fully diluted they own 70%
there is some (not much) buying at 003....did you put them up?
"In it, Cyr said Laidlaw Energy Group sold its equity interest in Laidlaw Berlin BioPower to Newco Energy LLC in September 2010 for a cash payment at the time and a subsequent payment after the construction loan on the project closed." "
when was the article you are referring to printed?
your post says June 10th Concord Monitor article????
September to June? where was this information given to the shareholders in September? October? November? December? January? February? March? April? May?
we aren't Laidlaw Biopower....we're Laidlaw Energy
to the shareholders....I'm not repeating that again
couple of 003's went by...10k and 15k shares
"The sale of laidlaws equity position in berlin has been publicly reported."
when?
ok agree to disagree so we don't keep circling the same conversation
you are right....a PR or website note would clear that up immediately
"What did the PR say about the terms of the special preferred stock? Answer: Nothing. "
nope...said new issue
"There's no conflict between my theory Susanville is (was) to be paid for by conversion against the 700M shares authorized but not in the float, and the PR released."
well based on that theory.......where are the 'available' shares for conversion for the mngt 10pref shares....since the website says:
"Other Equity Securities Outstanding: 10 million Series A convertible preferred shares held by management. "
the subject is notification to the shareholders......not notification in hearings, or notification to press
when you say something was discussed you haven't addressed what I asked. When you provide a link FROM THE COMPANY to back YOUR statement that an event happened (and the timing of that notification) you are in the ballpark of this discussion.
"How did you miss this discussion? It's been beaten senseless here.
Seriously."
we can discuss anything here....that's not to say it's correct. The question is Simple....
a) when did they sell it
b) when were the shareholders told (I don't want to hear on the website, i want to hear when the information was put on the website)
I didn't ask about a discussion.....I asked about documentation
so the question is is the money on the balance sheet the facilitator fees or the down payment on the sale of the equity position in Berlin Station...or other
Also....
"If that does happen perhaps we'll buy shares back and reissue them in a secondary at a better valuation once we are on OTCBB."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63006320
there should have been income I would think for the faciltator services? How was that accomplished?
I'm curious....when was it sold? when was it reported to shareholders....
"IMO the important part is that common shareholders should realize that the concept of 2.4B shares (or 3B in the future) voting on some stockholder issue is a moot point"
none of my conversation surrounding stock references the voting rights....my conversation is solely based on the number of shares and the impact on the pps, along with the potential of a reverse split
JM I already discussed this with you. I want LLEG to notify all shareholders, not just the ones that call. Case in point....the reported sale of Laidlaw's equity position in the Berlin Station plant.
The stock discussion is just that....a discussion.