To: pocketthis who wrote (122 ) 4/21/2010 12:31:49 PM From: notimetowaste2 Read Replies (1) | Respond to Remember what you posted in the past on this $10M. I questioned your facts and you told me to just wait and see. Well, here we are, exactly where I said we would be on this $10M. Nowhere. I am not trying to be negative but if LBAS thinks they can feed us BS, they will. I think you truly believed what you posted in the past, but if you take an unbiased step back you will clearly see a pattern of deception from LBAS. This $10M SPA being the most recent. Have you asked yourself whether you're being played by an insider feeding you BS knowing that you will post on this board. This potential $10M SPA that was "leaked" and filed in the 10-Q seems like deception to me. First of all, the terms of the agreement are completely unreasonable in this capital market and given LBAS's situation. The terms are simply too good to be true for LBAS. No investment bank would purchase stock in this situation with only a 12% discount to market and 25% warrant coverage. Especially when the stock was fluctuating 20% up AND (mostly) down on a weekly basis for weeks leading up to the February 8th signing. This rule 144 restricted stock would be sold at a 50% discount with a 100% warrant coverage... Maybe 30% and 75%, but NEVER 12% and 25%. These are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY terms. Secondly, no institution is putting $10M into a fledgling company with a volatile stock without a strict anti-dilution clause, and there was none. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. My opinion (yes, just my opinion, but a well educated one) is that this SPA is bogus. They need to buy time because they are lost and LBAS is counting on the fact that most stockholders are inexperienced and gullible. Here is a positive statement to balance my post: This is all par-for-the-course in this high-risk micro-cap market, so don't get discouraged, but also dont fool yourself on the risk and potential deception.
