Curious $1.9 Million Writeoff for Alternate Energy

The latest Annual Report from Alternate Energy Corp includes a curious write-off. What's curious is not the amount or that it's written off, but that this is occurring now and not a year or more ago. First lets take a look at what they say in the latest 10K.

In accordance with SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," which was adopted in its entirety on May 22, 2003, we evaluate the carrying value of other intangible assets annually as of December 31 and between annual evaluations if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of the reporting unit below its carrying amount. When evaluating whether or not the asset is impaired, we compare the fair value of the reporting unit to which the asset is assigned to its carrying amount. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, then the amount of the impairment loss must be measured. The impairment loss would be calculated by comparing the implied fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying amount. The initial evaluation of our patents and technology, completed as of October 1, 2003 in accordance with SFAS No. 142 resulted in no provision for impairment losses being recorded. Additionally, we performed our periodic review of intangible assets for impairment as of December 31, 2005 and identified asset impairment as a result of the review of approximately $1,906,000.

It's interesting that they would point out here that they found no impairment in 2003, but neglect to reiterate what they reported in the 2004 annual report: Additionally, the Company performed its periodic review of its intangible assets for impairment as of December 31, 2004, and did not identify any asset impairment as a result of the review. The company filed suit against Rothman in October 2004 over the asset that was just now written off. The most concise statement of their claim was in their 2005-July 10SB12G/A where they said We alleged in our lawsuit that Rothman had in fact sold the technology to other companies, and on more than one occasion, prior to entering into the agreement with us. We additionally allege that the technology he purported to sell did not work.

So in or before October 2004, they sued Rothman claiming the technology was not his to sell, and didn't work. But two months later, they reviewed it, and found it unimpaired. Then 12 months later they found the impairment. So did something happen in the 12 months between reviews that made the Rothman technology worth less? Since the company recognizes now that the asset is worthless, they should have recognized it in 2004. The 2004 financials should be refilled.

Alternate Energy Corp Late Annual Report

Alternate Energy Corp on April 4th filed a NT 10k announcing that their annual report would be late. Explaining why they would not file their annual report on time, they stated:

The Registrant was unable to file its annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December, 31, 2005 in a timely manner because its independent auditors could not complete their review and issue their report as a result of an outstanding balance due, which has been satisfied as of the date hereof. The registrant anticipates that its form 10-K might not be completed for filing by the extended due date.

It looks like there might be some confusion over priorities over there. Their 2005-Q3 quarterly shows them having $165k in deferred consulting costs and $219k in prepaid expenses. So those prepaid expenses don't include the auditor. What consultants are they paying first?

GMC Holding Now a Private Company

GMC Holdings is now a private company, as a result of a settlement with the SEC on April 5th. The order is shown below.





GMC holdings on April 7th changed its webpage to reflect this change in status and made the following statement indicating that the SEC investigation is not yet closed.

The management of GMC Holding Corp. would like to inform our stockholders of the events and conditions currently facing the company. The Securities and Exchange Commission has instituted an investigation of GMC’s management, financial reporting and progress on technologies. We are fully complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the attempt to assist them with this investigation to accelerate a conclusion. We are confident that our complete disclosure of all information regarding our business practices, financial condition and current R&D progress will facilitate this result. In order to protect our shareholders, we requested an expedited delisting at this juncture. We wish to assure our stockholders that even though we are not trading, it is business as usual for the company.

We continue our efforts to improve our Cold Motor and other complimentary technologies. Negotiations continue with parties interested in purchasing a portion, or all of our technology. Once we have reached a resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we have identified plans to move the company forward assuring that our bona fide stockholders will benefit and share in any sale of our REMAT technologies assuring that our bona fide stockholders will benefit and share in any sale of our REMAT technologies

Lee Webb has also posted updates to his Feb 15 Stockwatch article on April 7 and March 8. And there is a new Stockwatch article April 10.