Skip to main content

The SEC Accuses AEHI of Fraud

payettesite A year or so ago, I wrote:

It may just be that AEHI is trying everything it can to find and develop a market and interest enough venture capital to help it stay afloat until it makes a sale – either in Idaho or China. Certainly not unusual (if a bit unusually far flung), often not successful, but that’s how it works. All one can really do from the outside is speculate. Let’s keep half an eye on AEHI and see how it goes.

Well, both eyes open beats half an eye:

The SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] alleges that Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. (AEHI) has raised millions of dollars from investors in Idaho and throughout the U.S. and Asia while fraudulently manipulating its stock price through misleading public statements that conceal the secret profits reaped by its CEO Donald L. Gillispie and Senior Vice President Jennifer Ransom.

It gets worse:

The SEC’s complaint charges AEHI, Gillispie, and Ransom with violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and names as relief defendants two companies controlled by Gillispie and Ransom (Executive Energy Consulting LLC and Bosco Financial LLC).

As usual in cases like this – that is, that involve alleged misuse of funds -there are alarming details:

Gillispie enriched himself using the proceeds of these nominee sales. Ransom transferred at least $200,000 of the $675,326.14 in proceeds from her sales of AEHI stock to Gillispie. Ransom wrote a check to Bosco (her limited liability company) for the majority of the $200,000, but the check was deposited in Gillispie's Energy Executive bank account, which Gillispie uses for personal expenses, such as jewelry, cruises, and his Maserati sports car. Thus, Gillispie's statement that he never sold AEHI shares was false in light of his use of Ransom and Webb as his nominees for stock sales.

Now, being accused of something and being guilty of it are two different things and the SEC hasn’t yet proven anything. However, if nothing else, this episode reinforces that it’s always wise, regardless of the business, to research any company one wants to invest money in.

The Idaho Statesman has more here.

AEHI’s proposed site in Payette County, Idaho.

Comments

gunter said…
Is there a difference between being bamboozled by a "penny stock" company and corporate lobbists scamming the federal taxpayer through bogus federal loan guarantees?
Anonymous said…
Gunter, where in the world did you read anything about federal loan guarantees in this article? Are you trying to extrapolate this alleged (note that in the US they are innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much evidence is against them) fraud to the federal loan guarantee that has been issued? If so, please explain how this you can bridge the gap between the two, because I don't see it.
D Kosloff said…
Yes Gunter, there is a difference. The difference is, as it often is, between the real world and your imagination.
Anonymous said…
Is there a difference between an anti-nuclear campaigner's arguments and deceptive cheap-shot rhetoric?
Rod Adams said…
It is still too early to declare that Gillispie, Ransom and all of the other people associated with AEHI are simply crooks with no real business plan worthy of investing some risk capital.

As an AEHI stockholder, I am most troubled by the fact that several press releases issued by the company have loudly proclaimed that none of the company officers had sold any of their stock. That is apparently not true and leads to many other legitimate questions.

On the other hand, there should also be no doubt in anyone's mind that AEHI has had some powerful and well organized opponents who have been working hard to engineer a fall from grace. The Snake River Alliance is not the only group that did not want them to succeed. AEHI has also attracted some of those bottom dwellers called "naked shorts" that engage in the very lucrative practice of selling stock they do not own in a speculative enterprise. They can make a killing if the stock price tanks, allowing them to cover their sales with much cheaper shares bought after the fact. One of the really scary things about "naked shorts" is that they can actually sell more stock than the company has issued - creating an oversupply and a price drop out of thin air.

I have no idea how this saga is going to end up. The SEC action to "protect" me has already caused the value of my shares to fall from 58 cents on the day they announced their action to about 8 cents on the day they allowed trading to occur again. Somehow that does not feel very protective.

Just imagine how Apple shareholders would have felt if the SEC response to an allegation that Jobs backdated options to create a several hundred million payout was to halt trading in Apple for several weeks.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...