Partial Compensation doesn't mean Partial Equity.

Read the USOG release again - to the best of my recollection, the SEC suspended them for not issuing a PR that they have changed their previous financials, despite the new financials having the correct notes on them.

Apparently the SEC is now requiring PRs?

"After a review of the Company’s historical press releases, the Company wishes to note that on May 20, 2011, the Company filed its Quarterly Report for the three month period ended March 31, 2011 on Form 10-Q which included for the first time, restated figures for the period ended March 31, 2010. The Notes to those financial statements detail all the adjustments. The SEC noted that the Company did not issue a press release specifically addressing the restatement."

This simple issue allows for a straightforward PR.

Obviously - our issues aren't that simple that we can issue a simple PR.

Or maybe they are that simple - based on the SEC suspending a company for proper documentation and up to date filings as with USOG.

Let's see which government agency can move faster?

NHSEC
USSEC

Any takers on a little wager?

Keep this up and we'll be above where we were before the suspension.

They stated the $20 million loan was a federally backed loan - and that is debt - not equity. Equity = ownership, Debt = Liability.

Again, what is your beef that you need to keep questioning this? Who gives a f' if Susanville is another "project"? We get revenue and move on. I personally don't care if Susanville is another stepping stone.

And you still can not provide proof that Susanville is another Berlin - except to state that the PRs are lies - same blah blah blah repeated over and over again like so many others here.

Back in 2008 Berlin was consistently referred to as a project. The current plants are not.

What is so hard to grasp about a PR that states LLEG will be 100% equity holder?

And why do you keep bringing this up?

Why do the facilitator fees and the down payment have to be two separate funds?

It still hasn't been completely sold - they have to close on the financing for the balance of the payment.

It was discussed here last year.

I believe a couple mill showed up in cash in our assets - based on the financials.

NDA?

Assets / Accounts Receivable?

How was the sale just "reported"? It's clearly on their website - and has been for some time.

"After the successful development of the project which commenced as little more than an idea in 2006, Laidlaw Energy reached an agreement to sell its equity stake in the project in consideration for an up front payment and a subsequent payment to occur upon the closing of the project financing for the Berlin Project. Laidlaw currently remains a substantial stakeholder in the project, however, until the terms of the transaction have been satisfied. Laidlaw also has an ongoing role in the project as certain of its principals provide executive management services to Laidlaw Berlin Biopower, LLC pursuant to certain Management Services Agreements."

1. I don't believe the preferred shares discussed for the Susanville project have been issued, thus wouldn't be listed.

2. Why would management give up some of their voting control of the entire company for one plant?

I agree with you. I am not worried about dilution - I simply want to put to bed the convertibility issue.

Are we still assuming the preferred shares are convertible?

I think government mandate will determine the terms of the deal. We wouldn't want to get suspended by the SEC, now would we? Oh - wait..........

Please correct me if I am wrong: We need audited financials with a form 211 to get a MM to make a market. We need audited financials, and some other docs, to uplist.

Wouldn't killing 2 birds with 1 stone make sense here?

The revenues should cover the lease payments, and if debt was used to finance the purchase (way down the road, based on the PR) - then no shares would need to be issued either way.

What about here: "however management also owns approximately 165 million common shares and 95 million options to purchase common shares."

New Bedford was a lease with option to buy, and Mike stated, "though it is worth emphasizing that no additional capital will be required nor will there be any shares of LLEG issued." in the PR dated May 19, 2011.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110519005989/en/Laidlaw-Energy-Announces-Update-Acquisitions-Matters

It was posted here: # 93331

Me too - but since the deal isn't complete - the shares haven't been issued - and it doesn't need to be posted.

In the email - there was still nothing that said convertible or not - it is just an assumption interpreted from the email.

In another post, someone stated they had called IR and the shares were not convertible.

Correct - which means he plans on being a fully-reporting company before that deal goes down.

Thanks for pointing that out!!!!

I know we're under a lot more scrutiny now - which gives me more faith - but I'm still going to ask the question.

Given the circumstances, this could not be more true, "but it is not our expectation at all that the shares are going to be adding any selling pressure to the market any time soon."

Has anyone called the firm to verify LLEG is a client? I'm not sure they would disclose that information - but it may be worth a try.

Can you repost that email - I don't see it in a search. So we have reports that IR said they were NOT convertible, and an email from Mike saying they ARE............

I believe it was posted a while back that they were non-convertible.

Maybe / Maybe not - I read, "Messages posted by individuals may be misleading, deceptive, or in error. If you disagree with a posting, feel free to voice your opinion. It is the policy of iHub to allow our members to freely discuss issues in a free and open manner, and we will not take sides in disagreements or disputes based on investment sentiment or other subjective criteria. "

Are all 17 trading?

Hopefully it will settle up.

Just making the comment. That's all.

Perfect chance for Mike to buy back cheapies!!!

Are you suggesting Wives can't / don't trade???

My bad, "...quite clear what the suspension was all about..."

Quite Clear = Unambiguous
Specific = Unambiguous

Thus, Quite Clear = Specific

So for a brief moment - BBFL was how rich????

Did the chart just spring above a penny?????

You call that specific?

including their assets <wow - this helps narrow it down>

business operations <really making things clearer now>

current financial condition <Well dang, if this just isn't clear as mud>

and/or <THIS is SO Specific I can hardly stand it>

issuances of shares in company stock <about a focused as the light off a disco ball>

If we make it out of this, I hope we can get an indie film maker to do a documentary. All longs will get appearances. Sitting at their desks, posting on "The Board." Maybe that's what we should call it, "Stock Board." Show what life is like in the digital age and on the Pinks (or Greys - whatever).................

Actually it seems to be acting just like <gasp> what some would call a pump and dump - although this time the SEC created the condition. How quaint..............