Replies to post #100563 on Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[ChesapeakePaddler]

"Because the CEO is purported to be well versed in SEC Rules and Regulations "

Renee, what do you base your statement on? I hope that it was not just based on the opinions of posters on this board.

[DragonBear]

Since the SEC raised questions about the

That typically means about 3 years of Financials to satisfy an Auditor that a baseline and subsequent entries are vetted.

Auditors vet every infinitessimal detail....every penny....every transaction.

For all practical purposes the Berlin project is the only activity which has occurred in the past 3 years. This isn't a business where one has continuous operating income flow to be accounted for, with many infinitessimal details to be examined. There is very little to account for (outside of that $1M "Other" in expenses on the so called financials). Not to mention management claimed they have been working on it for the past year(s).

So then, does Laidlaw and its principals fare better by not auditing the Financials and leaving the SEC's allegations as allegations, or submitting several audited yearly Financials and thereby risking the company and its principals to SEC sanctions?

That's a very good point. Do they have any incentive to rescue the common stock, and take that risk? The likely morbid Susanville project was the only thing depending on the value of the common stock. Yeah they have to say goodbye to their 160M common shares they hold. But that's better than risking their $5M/5 yr meal ticket.