InvestorsHub Logo

maddogs

04/20/10 8:39 AM

#32413 RE: rocketeer357 #32412

I looked into Kurtz and 'tho one could say if one looked hard enough, a possible trail be found where Government Sachs was resposible for funding Noahs Ark, lol, it's possible whereby Kurtz may have helped Don find these new Managers. So Kurtz may have some influence in the future. I sure would like to see some training out of his surgical center for example.

I think relying on LTC to break into the market, via this new Mngt., will take the form of some new collaborations. I don't see this new group as being of the "Don Robbins orientation" of going it alone. Which, if the case, will, with great certainty on my part, require sharing The New Management LTC share allocation on an initial/upfront basis, ie; LTC shares. That's fine with me! Do not want to get that stuck on the hill problem going again.

That 10 mill$ makes sense from the stand point of the first bridge, but the first bridge expenditures went towards a fair % of initial outlays in structure, California office, equipment ect. Another 10 mill Bridge may stretch out to more accomplished with collaborations in effect. Or if the new management cannot "roll", we may only see more 510ks for a period of time. Not a bad thing, imo, but I would like to hear about collaborations.

I'm not sure if Ctgi shares are what the "investment co." would look for. Least ways the players as we see them now. Not saying once things move along there won't be an opportunity in CTGI from an "Investment Co.",, more so than the simple handling it (CTGI) has had in the past.. possible hedge and group manip.. We are one step away from that "possible hedge and group manip" and two steps away from ""Investment Co.",, " imo.

So to say, financing is neither a premium condition, or not, till
LTC shares are banked in CTGI for the ""Investment Co.",, " interest, and possibly the bridge and understanding how the LTC
Managers will proceed before the "possible hedge and group manip"
happens.

At any length, CTGI needs to clear the deck, debts and obligations, imo, and can proceed on an addition course..CCTI. Valuations will develop. Each exposure of what's to come will set pricing on an "after basis", if we see a significant ownership of LTC, and for me, 1/3 will be fine, all things being equal to above mentioned scenario for LTC, .50 should be a first step, imo, based above 510ks being submitted for.

The 25 mill share addon,, I'm not sure what to make of it yet, as they have not entered the market. I'm playing with a few ideas on that. One of which is a last minute poison pill application
may have been activated, towit the 25 mill addon, in large part,
could be written down so to speak.

uw86

04/20/10 9:11 AM

#32415 RE: rocketeer357 #32412

the obvious answer to your last question is no-but i think it was rhetorical. you are right; key questions are how much of ltc will be left and at what cost to shareholders.

cassini2titan

04/20/10 1:12 PM

#32422 RE: rocketeer357 #32412

Good points and discussion rocket & MD.
Jesup-Lamont, having already funded about $8M and
knowing that the $8M gets paid back in LTC shares at 50% of
the IPO price, J-L's bridge is likely to be just a few $100k,
enough to meet current cash-flow requirements to achieve an
aggressive business plan, which would include an IPO later this year. I do like your suggestion that J-L provide a $10M bridge
and then do a larger IPO 2 or 3 years down the road, but I doubt J-L prefers that option.