Seeking Alpha

The GeoTeam's  Instablog

The GeoTeam
Send Message
At GEO, our focus is on providing high quality insights on mid and micro cap equities, both in the China and U.S. spaces. Since our inception, we have come to be known by our GeoBargain selections, a group of stocks with a specific set of criteria that has proven to help them perform better than... More
My company:
GeoInvesting, LLC
My blog:
GeoInvesting Blog
  • Who Really Owns the Ping Yi Mine: L&L Energy or a Private Chinese Investment Group? 57 comments
    Jan 13, 2012 2:26 PM | about stocks: LLEN

    In recent months, things have been pretty bad for Chinese coal company L&L Energy (NASDAQ:LLEN). There have been public allegations of fraud, mine shutdowns and falling profits. The only bright spot has been the company’s valuation, which has stayed quite high relative to the rest of the China RTO sector (~$100 million market cap). As bad as things seem for LLEN, it could get much worse. That’s because the GeoTeam recently uncovered evidence that appears to indicate that LLEN does not own and never acquired the Ping Yi Mine. LLEN claims in its SEC filings that it acquired the Ping Yi Mine in January of 2010 and that the mine contributed close to 40% of the company’s total coal production for the financial year ended on April 30, 2011.

    Red Flag Alert Summary

    • The SAIC file of the Ping Yi Mine shows that the Ping Yi Mine is currently held by a private investment group, rather than the LLEN subsidiary, Fuyuan County Baoxing Economic & Trade Co., Ltd., the company identified as the acquirer of the mine in SEC disclosures.
    • In a truly mind-blowing development, this investment group has put the Ping Yi mine up for sale during the second half of 2011. There are multiple readily navigable web links in China that address the sale of the mine:

    • The SAIC file we obtained with the official chop of Guizhou Province SAIC Office clearly shows that LLEN is not the owner of the Ping Yi Mine and that the current owners of Ping Yi Mine are Mr. Zhang Baoguo (40%), Mr. Hu Shiwei (30%), Mr. Liu Shuangyou (16%) and Mr. Chen Honglin (14%). Ping Yi Mine is a partnership and Mr. Hu Shiwei is the legal representative and executive partner of the Ping Yi mine. Based on our knowledge, these four individuals are not relevant to LLEN.
    • The company claims in its SEC filings that it paid $3.96MM to acquire the Ping Yi Mine. If the company never, in fact, bought the mine, then where did that money go? Who has it?
    • To our knowledge this is the first instance that anyone has challenged LLEN’s ownership interest in the Ping Yi Mine.
    • Recall that on August 2nd, 2011 Glaucus Research challenged the ownership of DaPuAn Mine and the SuTsong Mine, reporting that LLEN did not own the DaPuAn Mine and the SuTsong Mine. Based on the associated SEC file, Ping Yi Mine (245,547 ton), DaPuAn Mine (245,545 ton) and ShuTsong Mine (122,081 ton) jointly contributed almost 100% of LLEN’s total coal production for the financial year ended on April 30, 2011.
    • In a separate development, we learned that the DaPuAn Mine, which LLEN claims had contributed close to another 40% of the company’s coal production in the financial year ended on April 30, 2011, has reportedly been completely shut down (See also, English translated page) since Nov. 22, 2011 due to a mine disaster in that area. Based on our knowledge, it has yet to resume production activities.
    • Remember that in 2011, despite numerous public and private pleas from shareholders, LLEN has yet to upgrade its auditor from ‘Kabani & Co’ to a more reputable top 10 firm or even a top 100 firm. Could the information we just revealed be why? These latest developments show why it’s so important for companies to retain a reputable auditor to ask the tough questions to potentially find what we have found.

    We have taken a short position in LLEN’s common shares. We believe that LLEN’s stock is not investable as investors become aware of these extremely troubling developments. As always, we will continue our research into the issue and will update our readers with developments.

    On a side note:

    GeoInvesting made repeated and good faith efforts to set up a meeting or phone call with chief executive Dickson Lee at a place or time of his choosing, but to no avail. Lee’s initial willingness to discuss GeoInvesting's findings soon transformed into a tedious game of delay, involving even more assistants who made more phone calls and sent more E-mails. Ultimately, L&L demanded we write down our findings and questions, indicating to us that Dickson just didn’t have time to speak to us.

    Well, here are our questions:

    • Who owns the Ping Yi Mine?
    • Why is it up for sale by an investment group with no apparent ties to LLEN?
    • If LLEN does not own the Ping Yi Mine, where did the $3.96 million really go?
    • Is it true that the DaPuAn Mine has been shut down since late November? The company states in its most recent 10Q that there has been a "slowdown" at the mine. A "slowdown" is different from a shutdown. Which is it?

    We sincerely hope that Dickson Lee and the members of LLEN’s management team can free up some time to address these important questions.

    Disclosure: Short LLEN

Back To The GeoTeam's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (57)
Track new comments
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    May I know:

     

    1) When was this SAIC file released from the Guizhou Province SAIC Office?

     

    2) Did you obtain an original copy of the SAIC file directly from the Guizhou Province SAIC Office?

     

    3) Did you make any effort to contact the Mr. Wu about the sale of Ping Yi mine:
    a) to find out whether the mining permit matches that of SAIC record and LLEN's as well?
    b) to find out who the seller is, the private investment group, LLEN's subsidiary or someone else?
    14 Jan 2012, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Good questions. Why didn't they include this information orginally? Looks like stock price manipulation.

     

    I heard the company reached out to GEO and asked them to submit their questions to them in writing (their attorney asked this of them in light of the current environment for Chinese stocks and the fact that GEO is under suit by some other companies), but GEO refused.

     

    It's sad that GEO bills themselves a due diligence outfit when they don't even get the whole story and are happy with incomplete data. But then again, they already established their short position prior to this report, so what do you expect......
    15 Jan 2012, 07:07 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    A reply from Malogan65 of YMB regarding the removal of Glaucus' article (http://bit.ly/zkt7j6):

     

    You need to get better educated friends....

     

    Why don't you ask Eli over at SeekingAlpha why it was pulled? It was the fact that I explained to Eli that Matt had the SAIC filings all wrong that he put the article "under dispute". He then allowed Matt to rebuttal, for which Matt had nothing to come back with. Then Eli took the article down at my request when it was clear to Eli that Matt was being either deceptive/manipulative or incredibly stupid on the SAIC filings and Matt had no defense.

     

    Matt, being the slime that he is, clearly is willing to keep a factually incorrect, deceptive, and manipulative article on his website. Nobody to police him there, huh?

     

    Try using a little common sense.
    ----------------------...

     

    I just wonder why GEO has no hesitation to take Matt's report as some kind of trustworthy findings in its article. Too desperate to use other's no-factual article to support its own findings.

     

    I look forward to receiving a feedback from GEOInvesting.
    15 Jan 2012, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » the answers are as follows:
    1. the SAIC was obtained on Jan 13, 2012.
    2. yes. the original copy with the chop. If you want, I think you also can ask your representative in China to get the same document from the same office. It is not difficult.
    3. We did. In fact, we contacted Mr. Wu back to middle of Dec. 2011. We pretended to be an investment company in Beijing who was trying to acquire the Ping Yi Mine. Sure, the mining permit info exactly matches the SAIC record. Based on these official record, Ping Yi Mine is not affiliated with LLEN at all. the official owners of Ping Yi Mine registered in the SAIC are four individuals, Mr. Baoguozhang, Mr. Hu Shiwei, Mr. Chen Honglin and Mr. Liu Shuangyou.
    Bob
    18 Jan 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    No - the document you have was printed on 1/13/12. You cannot say when the data in that document is effective.

     

    I can go to ICG's latest proxy, print out a page showing the directors of the company, have a time stamp at the bottom of when I printed the document as of 1/18/12, and claim that it's current data and that Arch Coal never purchsed ICG because here in my possession is proof of a "current' proxy statement (see the date on the bottom? it's today!) with the directors and officers *still* listed at the company! Arch is a fraud!!
    18 Jan 2012, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    1. When did you obtain the original copy of the SAIC file directly from the Guizhou Province SAIC Office?

     

    2. Since you have the original hard copy, would you be able to scan and post it here for immediate reference?

     

    18 Jan 2012, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • jonsjon1223
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    I have a good question too: has kabana and Co ever audited a fraud? I don't think so!
    14 Jan 2012, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    The date at the bottom of your SAIC filing - that's the date it was printed from the computer. Try printing this website and you'll see the date stamp of the day you printed it at the bottom (at least with MS Explorer)

     

    You cannot conclude that is the effective date of the filing information.

     

    There is no date within the file that you can say the data is as of. It could be 2009, 2010, 2011 data and you cannot prove otherwise.
    15 Jan 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » As I responded to the before post, you can ask your representative in China to pull the SAIC file from the Guizhou SAIC Office. Absolutely, you can get the same file as we did. It can not be very expensive. Furthermore, you also can check the current basic information of Ping Yi Mine on the website of Guizhou SAIC Office. (http://bit.ly/w04i1o).
    18 Jan 2012, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    You pulled that filing from a website or FTP site - the date on the bottom of the page is the date it was printed. There is *no* date within the page itself that says when the data is effective. The data could be effective as of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or anytime in between. There is no way to tell.
    18 Jan 2012, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    1. How much did the Guizhou SAIC Office charge you for the file?

     

    2. Did you get a receipt for it?
    18 Jan 2012, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Sure, we have the invoice, but it is still not in our US office yet. I can tell you, it is very cheap (less than USD 100) to pull this our in the SAIC Office itself. You only need to send a guy to the Guizhou SAIC Office and ask the officer to print those basic information of Ping Yi Mine as of the pulling date. In China, there are some different agents (lawyers as well) to do this business. You can contact them as well. When you calculate the cost, you may also need to add the labor cost as well. Remember, as a whole, USD 200 is the max. Don't let those agents make too much money from your pocket.
    19 Jan 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Parker2,

     

    I understand that you don't know how to interpret those different dates on the file. Why don't you ask your PRC attorney to issue an opinion or even directly give a call to Guizhou SAIC Office to confirm? Here is the link of the Guizhou SAIC Office with relevant phone numbers (http://bit.ly/wufRoZ). Remember, you need to call the company registry, which is the department within the Guizhou SAIC Office in charge of these files and company registration.
    19 Jan 2012, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Will you be able to scan & post the invoice and the SAIC file from the Guizhou SAIC Office for us to view here?
    19 Jan 2012, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Additionally, if it's an actual file and not downloaded from the internet, then you should be able to write something on the file to distiguish it from the file in your "report" (and I use that word loosely). The file in your report was downloaded remotely, not from the SAIC office in-person.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Only two dates appear in the document you presented:

     

    1. the formation date of the partnership
    2. the date you downloaded it from the web or FTP.

     

    There are no other dates to tell you when the data is effective. For all your readers, it might as well be 2008 data downloaded from the web on 1/13/12. See my ICG-Arch example of how I can duplicate your findings.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Parker2,
    You really don't know how thing works. There is no way for us to download sth from the database of SAIC (Well, I really hope I can). As I said, someone can go to the Guizhou SAIC Office and ask, the SAIC officer will print the SAIC from its system. Sure, you need to pay a nominal amount to the SAIC for such a service.
    I am a kind of tired of you. Man. As I said, check out for yourself and by yourself. I will not respond to your postal anymore.

     

    Bob

     

    19 Jan 2012, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear CoolWatch:
    I reserve the right to do that. But I do suggest you to pull for yourself.
    Even if I post the invoice in here, someone may still say I post a forged invoice as they did regarding the SAIC file we pulled from Guizhou SAIC Office.
    19 Jan 2012, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Hmm... you're tired, but yet still unable to answer my simple questions. They're pepper throughout this blog: the ones you're avoiding.

     

    At least you admit it's a print date, not an effective date.
    19 Jan 2012, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    The date (Jan 13, 2012) that we see on the report is believed to be the printout date from a hosting file via some sort of deployment document tool.

     

    You may try it here (http://scr.bi/zmAaTe)
    15 Jan 2012, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Cool Watch,

     

    thank you so much for your imagination. As I said, if you do not trust our SAIC file, you can ask the guy you trust in China to pull for yourself and by yourself.

     

    Bob
    19 Jan 2012, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Not really. I think SAIC is relevant document as long as it is accurately filed and properly obtained.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Coolwatch,

     

    You point is good. just to properly obtain for yourself. The SAIC file is as it is in the SAIC system.

     

    Bob
    19 Jan 2012, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    From a post on yahoo messageboards:

     

    I could literally go on http://bit.ly/z0UOv1 or any other classifieds website right now and put up for sale one of Peaboy's Kentucy mines.

     

    Will I be able to sell it? Will Peabody have to disclose my ad?
    17 Jan 2012, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Maj & Dan - someone is selling your business on Yahoo.

     

    Are you sure you really own it???
    17 Jan 2012, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Parker2, if someone puts up the copies of our Certificate of Incorporation and Articles of Association to sell my business, I am sure, I will try to find who did that and sue that guy who is trying to make a fraud. Apparently, except ourselves, no one can get those copies as they stay well in our office.

     

    However, the current case is that someone holding the business license (the same as the information shown in the official SAIC file) and mining permit of Ping Yi Mine is selling it. Based on its press release, LLEN just does nothing but to watch the sale is going.

     

    Bob
    18 Jan 2012, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    "Bob":

     

    If you bought geoinvesting from someone a few years ago, they will have all the information that you claim nobody can get and is well within your office. Think: It might be outdated information, showing him or her as the owner still, but they would have it and could easily claim that you never purchased it and they were selling it for themselves.

     

    That is what you have in your possession.

     

    Why don't you take a trip down to Kentucky to see how many coal mines are being represented as "for-sale" of which the person with the advertisement has no legal ownership of the mine. I've seen quite a few in my day.

     

    You're forming conclusions with far from complete data.
    18 Jan 2012, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Stark over on the yahoo messageboards also brings up a totally plausable scenario. I've seen this happen in the US as well:

     

    If I was some random guy in China I would post the mine for sale as well. I would post any many mines as I can for sale. This is done in the US all the time.

     

    If he can find a buyer for $118 million or even $50 million. Then I am sure he is assuming he can get the company to sell the mine to him for $30 or $40 million (given the production issues) and use that money to go buy better mines that have more future potential.

     

    In this scenario our friend Mr Wu walks away with a huge chunk of change for himself.

     

    I would present the potential buyer with whatever story needed and any information needed and once he puts in a firm offer I would go cut the deal with the company. If comapny won't sell I just walk away from the deal.

     

    Not a whole lot of work to make a lot of money if successful for this guy.

     

    Personally I think every company is willing to sell an asset at the right price.
    18 Jan 2012, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Hey, Parker2,

     

    thank yo so much for your comments. As I said you can ask your representative in China to pull the SAIC file from Guizhou SAIC Office. It is not difficult and expensive at all. Absolutely, you can only need to spend less than USD 200 to confirm everything.

     

    Furthermore, as I said you (if you do not know Chinese, you may ask anyone you trust who can understand Chinese to do) also can go to the website of Guizhou SAIC (http://bit.ly/w04i1o) to check it out.
    18 Jan 2012, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    So your tactic now is to ignore logic and plausable reason?

     

    What kind of "research" are you conducting? I'm pointing out flaws in your argument and all you can do is go back to the original flawed document with your eyes closed.

     

    The document itself is flawed, like I explained in the ICG - Arch example.

     

    The bias you are portraying is upsetting.
    18 Jan 2012, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Hey, Dear Parker2,

     

    As I said, you can check it out by yourself. If you do not trust yourself and dare not to check with yourself, I really cannot do anything for you. Good luck.

     

    Bob
    18 Jan 2012, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    I thought you provided it for us? Is that not the case? Why are you asking me to pull a document you already pulled?

     

    You're totally missing the point.
    18 Jan 2012, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Parker2,

     

    Please check the full report and we already published the SAIC file. You can find it on the report. I mean, if you do not trust our SAIC file, you shall pull by yourself and for yourself.
    19 Jan 2012, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Who Really Owns the Ping Yi Mine: L&L Energy or a Private Chinese Investment Group?

     

    LLEN acquired majority controlling ownership interest in the resource mining permits and the mining rights to the Ping Yi mine and assumed mining operations.

     

    The Ping Yi mine, including the mine site and the underlying coal and other minerals, is owned by the Chinese government as a general national policy that the government owns such resources.

     

    Didn't you read the 10k report before taking this question as a heading?
    18 Jan 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear CoolWatch,

     

    please read this Acquisition Agreement which is attached to 10-Q on March 17, 2010.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/zhTqTr

     

    You have a good point, why LLEN's SEC file contradict to each other? We also want to hear LLEN's explanation.
    18 Jan 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    I have no idea what contradiction you attempt to refer? Could you be more specific?
    18 Jan 2012, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dear Coolwatch,

     

    there is an acquisition agreement made by and between LLEN and Ping Yi Mine enclosed to 10-Q on Mar 17, 2010. In this agreement, LLEN acquired 100% of Ping Yi Mine. You can check it out in the link and/or SEC file.
    19 Jan 2012, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Why is it up for sale by an investment group with no apparent ties to LLEN?

     

    Please, GEO, read & check the 10K filing.

     

    LLEN acquired MAJORITY CONTROLLING OWNERSHIP INTEREST in the resource mining permits and the mining rights to the Ping Yi mine and assumed mining operations.

     

    The investment group who said they have 10% stake, apparently represents the MINORITY INTEREST, obviously is seeking exit.

     

    Did you or do you intend to initiate a OTGDD to find out who they are and ..... ???
    18 Jan 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Under your disclosure clause it states GEOInvesting has short position in LLEN. I'm not interested in the amount or value GEO's position but would like to ask whether or not you would also state the following risk factor after the disclosure?

     

    RISK FACTOR:

     

    GEO maybe covering its short position while its subscribers and /or followers shorting this stock
    18 Jan 2012, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » This is by far the easiest case we have come upon. Black and white... LLEN does not and never owned the mine. The SEC filings are incorrect.

     

    I think LLEN investors are gaining comfort from an assumption that L & L will not be halted due to the audit being months away. But what they do not realize is that this thing could be halted any day if the regulators get into the story, regardless of the auditors, especially given Dixon's past SEC violations. Laziness and procrastination will cost LLEN long investors.

     

    OPM, other peoples' money: I suspect some fund managers are saying what the heck.. what more do I have to lose, it is only a $3 stock? If their investors only knew how cavalier their managers were being with their money they would be appalled. Sometimes, you need to swallow your pride and just move on to salvage whatever you can from your investment.

     

    It is only going take one big seller to realize what is going on to destroy a mountain of small time LLEN long investors that could get out now, with some recovery of wealth.

     

    Again.. stay tuned..
    19 Jan 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    LLEN does not and never owned the mine?

     

    Consulting Services Agreement - This agreement allows Baoxing to manage and operate Ping Yi, and collects the respective revenue, net profits and/or losses of the Company.

     

    Operating Agreement - The parties to this agreement are Baoxing and Ping Yi, respectively, including all of the shareholders of Ping Yi. Under the agreement, Baoxing guarantees the contractual performance by the Company under any agreements with third parties, in exchange for a pledge by Ping Yi of all of its respective assets, including accounts receivable and inventories. Baoxing will provide necessary working capital, management, and purchase necessary assets to operate Ping Yi.

     

    Proxy Agreement - Baoxing has entered into proxy agreements with all of the shareholders of Ping Yi under which the shareholders have vested their voting power of the Company in Baoxing, and agreed not to transfer the shareholders' respective equity interests in the Company to anyone but Baoxing or its designee(s).

     

    Option Agreements - The parties to these agreements are Baoxing, Ping Yi, and all of the shareholders of Ping Yi, respectively. The shareholders of Ping Yi have granted Baoxing or its designee(s) the irrevocable right and option to acquire all or a portion of such shareholders' equity interests in the Company.

     

    Equity Pledge Agreements - The parties to each of these agreements are Baoxing, Ping Yi and all of the shareholders of Ping Yi, respectively. The shareholders of Ping Yi have pledged all of their respective equity interests in the Company to Baoxing to guarantee each of Ping Yi's performance of the Company’s respective obligations under the Consulting Services Agreement.

     

    I hope this does not take your team too long to verify the sloppy work they have done so far. Yes, your conclusive report is apparently yet to be conclusive.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The only risk factor needed here is one that warns the LLEN longs that it is only a matter of time before this story ends very badly. Stay tuned...We are performing more DD and building more evidence everyday..
    19 Jan 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Time is running out. Maybe you should first rebuild your credence so that your members stop unsubscribing.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Parker .. the only kids in the room are the investors not savvy enough to realize that LLEN is playing with them. We will see who is pouting in the end..
    19 Jan 2012, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    I'd like to know when was the first time GeoInvesting requested to set up a meeting or phone call with Dickson Lee? And who was the person from GeoInvesting made such contact?
    19 Jan 2012, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    I think a bigger question for the Geo team is if they actually visited the mines this past summer.

     

    LLEN offered for investors to see the phycial mines and ask workers and governmental officials questions. Was Geo there to ask around about Ping Yi? Ask the officials and workers? While there, they could've asked people from the lowliest worker to the manger if they knew who LLEN was and verified the ownership.

     

    If they didn't go, I'm no sure how much they deserve the "research" and "due diligence" moniker they're labeling themselves as.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    And that is why I am conducting a DD on GEO's DD here.

     

    I certainly hope GEO has still maintained enough staff to rebuild their reputation, perform proper OTGDD with due care, etc.
    19 Jan 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » They don't and never did own the mine. Why don't you tell the company to show us an SAIC filing that says they own the mine? Because they can't... It's over my friend.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Whenever asked a question, you revert back to the same old statement that doesn't hold any truth.

     

    So I ask again: Did you visit the mine in-person (not some off-the-web hired hack) to talk to the employees and local governmental officials to confirm what relationship they had with LLEN? Not the officials that LLEN introduces, but others. That seems like it should've been *by far* your first step.

     

    You think that would've been a higher quality research and due diligence than a piece of paper that has been questionable and has limited and possibly outdated information?

     

    Did you confirm with the employess and governmental officials in-person at Ping Yi??

     

    This is a very simple "yes" or "no". That is all I want from you: Yes or No.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Look...do not feel the same way LLEN has with you towards me. My DD on your DD is far from over, my friend.

     

    Regarding the ownership issue, like my replies above, I have more than once told you to read through LLEN's latest 10/K. Haven't you done that yet? Or haven't you any staff left doing that?

     

    If you do not actually have the original SAIC filing to show us here, that's fine with me. I'll just have to take some merits off your article.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Parker2
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Still waiting for a simple "yes" or "no to the above question.

     

    I understand that in old age, things can get fuzzy, but this should have been a monumental due diligence verification trip for you. It would have been 10x better than a piece of paper - in-person verification with upwards to hundreds of employees and governmental officials.

     

    Did you confirm with the employess and governmental officials in-person at Ping Yi??
    22 Jan 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Out of curiousity, may I ask
    Why you did not put your Conclusive Proof report in this Geo Team's Instablog here?
    19 Jan 2012, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » That is a good question.. But the better question is how long do you think it will take the market to listen to our three recordings and realize that LLEN does not own and never did own the Ping Yi Mine?
    19 Jan 2012, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    The Recordings and Transcripts Provided by GEOInvesting, have fooled you all longs & shorts

     

    Right Answers to Wrong Reference
    1) By mentioning a SAIC was obtained at the begining of the conversation, GEOInvesting has successfully made an impression with the vice director of Company Registry of Guizhou SAIC Office that a SAIC was obtained directly from the office (rather than from a web or FTP). By such implication, Mr. Zhao was led to believe they were referring to the same format and content an official SAIC file. Certainly Mr, Zhao would be giving the right answers to the wrong reference if the SAIC file being mentioned has been edited or the bootom of the date was mistakenly referred.

     

    Misleading & Misrepresentation
    2) Through out the whole conversation with Mr. Zhao Weijun (赵维君), the vice director of Company Registry of Guizhou SAIC Office , Ping Yi mine or anything related to it has never been mentioned. Whatever answers Mr. Zhao made are no way specific to LLEN or its subsidiary.

     

    Motive Behind - Fears, Doubts & Uncertainties
    3) We have repeatedly questioned the SAIC file that GEOInvesting showed us is obtianed from a web or FTP because the document from GEO itself simply and clearly shows it is the date at the bottom of the downloaded file but not the date of a SAIC file. It is not difficult to understand the most straightforward way for GEO to clarify immediately this major query is to scan & post the original SAIC file which they claimed they obtained directly from the Guizhou SAIC Office. However, GEO has chosen NOT to, despite our repeated requests. It costs GEOInvesting less than $200 to get the SAIC file but NONE to scan and post in on their website or seekingalpha Instablog. Why not doing it? I think we know the answer.

     

    Lack of DD on Mr. Wu
    4) GEO has recognized Mr. Wu being the sales agent of Ping Yi Mine without first verifying any proper authorization by Ping Yi mine or any or all of the owners of the mine. What research or DD guidelines GEOInvesting are using? What made them so hastily to conclude that Mr. Wu is the right person to deal with?

     

    Mr. Wu - Jack of All Trade or a Crook?
    5) I am not sure if GEOInvesting has extensive experience in China business practices & cultures to deal with people who claim they have business offers to buy and sell. Everyday in China we encounter this sort of people who in fact are Chairman, CEO, Executive Director, Senior VP of a SHELL company (which you may never be able to get their SAIC file). Once they get you interested they will unilaterally become your agent, representative to look for the other side of the deal.

     

    Owners of Ping Yi Mine disappear?
    6) GEO never intends to reach out for these 4 partners while so keen on dealing with a Mr. Wu. Why? Lack of DD budget lately or time is running out to cover their short position?

     

    LLEN does not own but operates the mines
    7) The Ping Yi mine, including the mine site and the underlying coal and other minerals, is owned by the Chinese government as a general national policy that the government owns such resources. LLEN acquired majority controlling ownership interest in the resource mining permits and the mining rights to the Ping Yi mine and assumed mining operations in accordance with the following agreements made with Ping Yi mine dated January 18, 2010.

     

    Consulting Services Agreement - This agreement allows Baoxing to manage and operate Ping Yi, and collects the respective revenue, net profits and/or losses of the Company.

     

    Operating Agreement - The parties to this agreement are Baoxing and Ping Yi, respectively, including all of the shareholders of Ping Yi. Under the agreement, Baoxing guarantees the contractual performance by the Company under any agreements with third parties, in exchange for a pledge by Ping Yi of all of its respective assets, including accounts receivable and inventories. Baoxing will provide necessary working capital, management, and purchase necessary assets to operate Ping Yi.

     

    Proxy Agreement - Baoxing has entered into proxy agreements with all of the shareholders of Ping Yi under which the shareholders have vested their voting power of the Company in Baoxing, and agreed not to transfer the shareholders' respective equity interests in the Company to anyone but Baoxing or its designee(s).

     

    Option Agreements - The parties to these agreements are Baoxing, Ping Yi, and all of the shareholders of Ping Yi, respectively. The shareholders of Ping Yi have granted Baoxing or its designee(s) the irrevocable right and option to acquire all or a portion of such shareholders' equity interests in the Company.

     

    Equity Pledge Agreements - The parties to each of these agreements are Baoxing, Ping Yi and all of the shareholders of Ping Yi, respectively. The shareholders of Ping Yi have pledged all of their respective equity interests in the Company to Baoxing to guarantee each of Ping Yi's performance of the Company’s respective obligations under the Consulting Services Agreement.

     

    I have no objection to people taking short position but using deceptive means to cover short position at the expense of other investors in purely without business ethics. GEOInvesting, with its lack of professionalism and extremely low quality DD, has earned no respect from the investing public.

     

    Last but not least, I urge GEOInvesting here again to include the following risk factor under their disclosure clause

     

    RISK FACTOR:

     

    GEO maybe covering its short position while its subscribers and /or followers shorting this stock
    20 Jan 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » It is really useless to communicate logically with you, You are grasping for straws. All we need is the SAIC filing which we provided to tell the story in one sentence, but i will give you a paragraph.

     

    This is all you have to know:

     

    We sent a guy go to the SAIC Office on Jan 13, 2012 to obtain the SAIC file of Ping Yi Mine. The SAIC officer provided us with a printed copy of the SAIC file of Ping Yi Mine. Th e print out included the date of the day the file was provided to us . Then, the officer chopped the printed document with the official seal of the SAIC. This SAIC filing is the most recent and contains the most recent information regarding Ping Yi Mine,

     

    For clarifying this issue, we called the vice director of Company Registry of Guizhou SAIC Office.
    20 Jan 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • CoolWatch
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Scan and post the original SAIC file now. What causes you so scare to reveal it? Been edited and changed?
    20 Jan 2012, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • The GeoTeam
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Read the report.. We do provide the chopped SAIC document. You just Keep hanging on by a thread.
    20 Jan 2012, 01:11 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.