It;s a beautiful, modern one-story building with glass walls. There was a large open lab with bench-tops. They were completely empty, not a test tube or a piece of lab equipment in sight and the lights were on, not a car in the lot or one human seen. There was also a part of the space being remodeled. The building is Alexandria, which is a large REIT that owns biotech buildings. They are known for high rents. Importantly, I didn't see a fume hood for chemical synthesis or a laminar flow hood for cell culture.
If you need help with due diligence, contact me. Since you're about to take it on the shorts with LLEN, the least I can do is help with ONVO. I do have a sense of pity.
Should I stop by and ask them for you, U? Been working too hard today (very close to ONVO) and need to take a walk in the warm San Diego weather. Walk right past their facilities on Nancy Ridge (it has hills, good exercise). I'll let you know if anyone's home when I walk past.. What's ascb?
Now you're going down the slippery slope of intent and what was in the heads of the GEO folks at the time. The burden of proof is too difficult. But in tort, intent is not relevant or a burden of proof, just the outcome and result of their action. The first thing one learns as a lawyer is to pursue a winnable case, not something that is on the wrong side of a burden of proof. And the case against GEO for tort is winnable because we know the outcome of their actions directly and proximately cause damages. Res ipsa loquitur wins every time and keeps the legal resource use to a minimum. It also shifts the burden of proof to GEO, where it belongs.
I've also been #$%$ at the #$%$-kissing so-called analysts who are allowed on quarterly calls. Looked at from the economic side, it is expensive for a firm to have an analyst follow a particular company. Once LLEN gets back to trading, it's rising market cap can finally start to attract more main-stream analyst coverage and not from the current crop of sketchy banks. As someone who has to answer analysts questions for the company I work for, it is a never-ending source of amusement at how stupid the questions are. In fact, except for analysts from Goldman, I've yet to meet an intelligent and insightful analyst.
The key to the call will be that whatever Fongy says in the scripted part is on the record and what he should do for the Q&A port is refuse to answer questions "upon advice of counsel." In other words, do the Shakespearian thing and always blame the lawyers, it's why they charge so much.
I don't expect much from this call, only the scripted, pre-approved by lawyers part will be worth listening to.
Come on U, I love cooking up a storm in the creativity kitchen. So when are we going to start a geoduck farm near Vancouver, as soon as China lifts the import ban? Let's do something positive!
Oh no, another member of the junior barrister society. You need to clarify. There is no CRIMINAL law GEO has violated. However, GEO has cause significant damage to us, the LLEN shareholders, the damage is a direct proximate causation of GEO's action and therefore, GEO is liable in tort to the LLEN shareholders for the damages it has caused under the tort of tortious interference with contractual relations.
What a buffoon. Shareholder lawsuits are not on a superior court docket. But the lawsuit against GEO for tortious interference with contractual relations is going forward.
Motive is not relevant. Damages are enhanced. If GEO tries to hide behind a series of shell corporations, there is the power of the Courts, backed up by the army, navy, US Marshalls and the Royal Canadian Mounties to compel production during discovery.
Yes cool, I posted about this issue over the weekend. What I posted is that the GEO lawsuit should be based on tortious interference with contractual relations, not defamation. The timing of the hit piece the lack of any actual admissible evidence in it sure smells. If there was any communication, of any kind (including a wink-wink, nod-nod during a Skype call, between the GEO cronies and Ironridge), the lawsuit has the power of the subpoena to compel testimony. Moreover, any delay in the TDR listing is a further measure of damages. This is a classic tort issue that there are ENHANCED DAMAGES if the injured party was vulnerable at the time of the tort or injury. Think lost opportunity to describe the TDR issue. And we can file a shareholders' derivative action in the name of the corporation. Sleep well GEO and your cronies, including our favourite temporary Canuck, Carnes.
What's wrong guys, hanging too long with Canuck fans, eh? What could be wrong? They just beat the Bruins. eh? If you read the documents on EDGAR and understand a filer company obligations to file materials for a public corporation (since this is part of my day job for another company, another industry), you'll see that LLEN just tried to keep some stuff out for competitive advantage. Or else their lawyers did not make a persuasive case for confidential treatment. Either way, none of that information (which is usually contained in an exhibit, not a Q or a K) is appealable so LLEN gets another bite at the apple to shave a little less confidential information. But your post making a Whistler-sized mountain out of a Stanley Park sized hill show the depths of your desperation to grasp at straws to find any kind of issue and turning it into a major flaw, sufficient to stop the earth from spinning on its axis and accelerate the melting of the polar ice caps. And you consider yourselves "green" in your dreams, eh?
And this is a measure of part of the damages in the lawsuit against GEO et al. for tortious interference with contractual relations. These are real money damages suffered by the shareholders. This is not some amorphous (that is difficult to prove) damage to reputation cause by defamation, but an actual tort based on contract. There is also lost opportunity damages as well where the lost opportunity will be the deals that could not get done due to the fraud allegations made by GEO and lacking any non-hearsay evidence. In view of this Ironbridge deal, LLEN was vulnerable to this kind of damage. When committing a tort, if your victim is vulnerable, the damages are much higher. These are real money damages that need to be paid by GEO and its cronies. Short profits, if there were any, should be clawed back and paid to LLEN.
He still has to prove he's not an idiot. We're waiting. He said LLEN has to prove its not a fraud, se he has to prove he's not an idiot. Both allegations are complete hearsay. There's no there, there.
What? LLEN is required to prove the allegations false? According to whose set of laws? So here's my allegation: You are a stupid idiot. Now prove it wrong. Please post SAT scores, IQ test scores, college GPA, name of college (mine is in the ivy league), Ph.D. degree received, in which subject, publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals like Science or Nature, issued patents, Nobel Prizes received. Let's go, post the evidence.
Davis Wright is a criminal defense firm?? Really now. I thought they are a first amendment law firm (represents the Seattle Times) hired to sue the snot out of GEO and its cronies. Don't forget they also have east coat offices in New York and DC.
Has GEO issued an apology letter for wrongly accusing LLEN? Since when does a victim apologize?
The comments of a closed mind. This is not a political debate where each side talks above each other and no real discussion follows. This is about behavior patterns. This is how real prosecutors and law enforcement reacts, not a bunch of shrill short sellers. LLEN management knows the truth and the answer to the real question of if the numbers and profits are real. It is for us to figure it out. The truth shall set you free is a motto from the 19th century. It applies here. There is a body of documents that LLEN has already provided to the independent committee, to the Nasdaq and likely the SEC as well. And in a press release, has characterized that evidence in a point-by-point refutation of the GEO accusations. Since the actual documents likely cannot be released to the public, what else can LLEN do?
Again behavior and actions show the likely outcome. LLEN is showing the signs of a wrongly accused company. Face it, the shorts are screwed. Nice try. You win some and you lose some. You've lost on this one.
But this experience helps me understand that you cannot paint one category of stocks with a broad, racist brush or lying fraud. Moreover, putting boots on the ground in China (the modus operandi of Muddy Waters, GEO and Carnes) also does not answer the key fraud questions. It depends on the quality and smarts of those boots. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. It's like my portfolio, I have winners and I have losers. LLEN long will turn out to be a winner.
Let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room. The real issue is whether LLEN is a fraud or not. Have the short selling bloggers uncovered real frauds in the past? Yes. Does that mean that all companies accused of being a fraud, are a fraud? No. So how do you tell the real frauds from the wrongly accused?
You have to look for precedents and behavior patterns. Go to the NQ news stories for today and read the seeking alpha article on this issue. (sorry links are hard to post and above my pay grade). This study follows companies Muddy Waters has accused of fraud. Not all were, in fact, frauds. The article follows the company response and behavior patterns to try to distinguish real frauds from wrongly accused.
Based on the behavior patterns, it appears than LLEN falls in the wrongly accused camp. But LLEN needs to up its management game (Fong, Lee) in terms of control procedures and compliance (speaking from someone who implemented Sarb Ox procedures before).
Please read this and it should at least up the discussion from high school taunting to at least first year college poly sci class.
You keep missing the point. An investigation does not presuppose the conclusion. We have not seen the evidence LLEN provided. We only know LLEN has claimed it provided the evidence and issued a press release (which carried with it shareholder liability) characterizing this evidence, point-by-point, refuting the GEO hearsay allegations. No one is questioning what the Nasdaq and the SEC have to power to do. But neither will exercise that poser unless the evidence LLEN provided supports a conclusion of fraud and enables satisfaction of a strong burden of proof. The regulatory bodies can request/demand evidence/documents. But the regulatory body has to then support a charge of fraud AND satisfy its burden of proof with the only admissible evidence being the stuff that LLEN submitted. Therefore, in order to conclude a high likelihood of fraud and delisting, you have to assume or presuppose that LLEN knowingly mischaracterized the evidence/documents submitted (the stuff that is not public).
The first rule of holes is that when you're in one you need to stop digging. If LLEN mischaracterized its evidence in its press release it is digging a deeper hole. Alternatively, like the Latin motto of my alma mater veritas vos liberate (translated: the truth shall set you free), LLEN has never been in a hole, only an imaginary one GEO created, and the regulatory bodies will show was nonexistent with a clean bill of health.
You're missing the point. There are two groups of evidence. LLEN has indicated that it has supplied the documentation to prove up ownership of the mines to the independent committee of the Board. LLEN has listed its evidence and refuted the GEO allegations point-by-point. LLEN has not published the copies of such documentation but only characterized the evidence it has provided.
If one assumes that the evidence LLEN supplied is what they said it was, that is, characterized correctly, then the only other evidence available for the Nasdaq and SEC investigators is the evidence that GEO published. And the GEO evidence is rank hearsay.
LLEN is not hiding behind the heightened burden of proof standards. I have confidence that the Nasdaq and SEC will do its jobs correctly. In this country, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An investigation is not a guilty determination.
Moreover, if we, as public shareholders or shorters, follow the money or incentive tracks, the probability of GEO's allegations being correct is near 0% because it would make no sense to commit a crime and not enrich yourself in the process. All I've read is bigoted racial profiling that, in my opinion, is disgusting. You can slam Seattle all you want but we all know who's going to the superbowl this season.
Folks, this is a business that needs to be run and comply with its obligations as a public corporation. There is no "dark cloud" or other such fantasy hanging over it. There was only a blogger publishing a bunch of irrelevant hearsay #$%$. An entity accusing fraud has a high bar of a burden of proof. The two regulatory authorities, the SEC for the government and the Nadaq for the stock exchange, know this. If someone makes accusations of fraud, the two regulatory bodies are required to investigate. The Board of Directors of the company is also required to investigate with only independent directors.
Everyone is doing their jobs. We don't know the outcomes of the three investigations. We know that the Nasdaq and likely the SEC have requested documents/information. That is more likely than not the same stuff that was sent to the independent part of the Board.
Only the findings of the Nasdaq and the SEC have consequences. But both of these regulatory bodies know that in order for their findings to hold and if those findings are that LLEN committed fraud, there is an extremely high burden of proof to establish such a finding (this is first year law school stuff). Therefore, everything turns on the quality of evidence provided by the accuser (GEO). Accordingly, we as commoners in this process, can decide for ourselves the probability of the SEC/Nasdaq coming up with a finding of fraud with its attendant 9-part burden of proof test because we have studied the evidence presented by GEO. Based on the GEO evidence, and in my opinion, the probability of proving fraud is near zero because the GEO evidence is all hearsay and not admissible. That is my analysis. If you disagree, please cite specific admissible evidence (not opinion or hearsay-laden third-hand conversations) that is your basis for disagreement. Conclusory statements without evidentiary back-up will be ignored as more nonsense/FUD.