Replies to post #101749 on Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[zoom22]

Had i known LLEG would negotiate so little for so much work, and out of such a money making enterprise a plant with millions generated over 20+ years, i would never, ever, had invested in this company. To me LLEG did lots of the heavy lifting and dealt wth the local politics, PUC, etc., and made it seem like they would be at first keeping a portion of the plant (I thoought for their work they deserved it), and then that changed to selling it for a good percentage (disappointing but it was going to be something like 37% I think), and then finally just a few million (just incredible). Oh yeah, I feel mislead. This company has been nothing but a headache--every step of the way they have had drama.

[DragonBear]

LLEG's share = $2.75M

Just when I believe I have a handle on the numbers - you would have to post that. LOL You're correct.

It makes the LLEG financials they have posted on their website even more gooey to try to understand the actual revenue made. As the figures they present is as if LLEG is 100% owner of the Biopower investment, and entitled to 100% of the pay off from Cate, as you suggest.

The financials show $4.8M coming in during 2010, and a $1M expense, with the expense unexplained. Regardless, if one plugs in CTTC's post the Cate payments were to be approximately equal in size you have a total Cate payment of $7.1M. Subtract off the $5M initial investment, and that results in $2.1M in revenue generated over 5 years.

We now have to come back to your 50:50 point, and subtract off some given amount from the $2.1M. Bart's preferred stock partners are probably getting a little impatient after 5 yrs. And the Bart gang members are starving on the stated $155K compensation for 2010. Someone should ask Mr Ed, how much he charges the company per Email answered. ;) Then there are the accounting and legal expenses for the SEC investigation.

Unclear is how much of the stockholder equity has already been bled off into New Bedford, or was that part of the myterious $1M expense in the financials? Or were both involved to buy into New Bedford, where the investment amount was never given? The financials suggest the stockholder equity was at least $4.3M (Q3), ending at $3.88M (Q4 10). The beginning number after stock issuance is unknown.

It's unclear why the settlement is "Great" or exciting news. The $3.6M is better than the guesstimated $2.5M or less. That's a $2.1M maximum, and probably a lot less given the 50:50 rule, generated over 5 years. Maybe enough cash to pay expenses for the next 5 yrs for New Bedford, in a repeat of Berlin. Sooner or later the preferred stock holders will want a return on their investment (divy payout), and the walking skeletons of the Bart gang will need to be fed. Maybe give Mr Ed an extra bucket of oats? Accurred value for the common stock seems slim to none at this point, with the company still cash strapped.