Unassociated Document
July 8,
2009
VIA FACSIMILE, U.S. MAIL AND
EDGAR CORRESPONDENCE
John
Reynolds
Assistant
Director
Division
of Corporation Finance
Mail Stop
3561
Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F
Street, N.E.
Washington,
D.C. 20549
|
Re:
|
Global Clean Energy Holdings,
Inc.
|
|
|
|
Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
File No. 000-12627
|
|
Dear Mr.
Reynolds:
This
letter will respond to the Staff’s letter of comments, dated June 23, 2009, to
Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc. (“Company”) regarding additional comments to
the Company’s above-referenced report. Our responses, correspond to
the numbers you placed adjacent to your comments.
Form 10-K for Fiscal Year
Ended December 31, 2008
Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm, page F-2
Financial Statements, pages
F-3 through F-7
1. As
the Staff has noted, and as disclosed in the footnotes to the consolidated
financial statements, management reclassified the historical statements of
operations, including the cumulative amounts from the inception of the
development stage, in connection with the discontinuance of its
bio-pharmaceutical operations in 2007. In connection with their audit
of the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007,
the current auditors did evaluate the reasonableness of management’s accounting
for discontinued operations, including the reclassification of the historical
amounts in the statements of operations. However, that evaluation was
substantially less in scope and required substantially fewer audit procedures of
documentary evidence than would be required to re-audit the financial
information for the period from inception (November 20, 1991) through December
31, 2003. Most notably, it would be difficult and impracticable to
re-audit the consolidated statements of stockholders’ deficit for the period
from the inception of the development stage through December 31,
2003. During that period of time, common stock outstanding increased
from 3,500,000 shares to 76,456,095 shares and contributed capital increased by
almost $13 million. Furthermore, the statement of cash flows for the
period from inception of the development stage through December 31, 2003
reflects many transactions which, although significant at the time, are no
longer germane to the financial condition or operations of the current company,
including transactions involving the issuance of debt; debt restructuring; debt
converted into equity; stock issued for services, expenses, and litigation;
notes receivable collected or written off; etc. Again, the difficulty
and impracticability to re-audit these transactions in accordance with
professional standards is substantial. During this period of time,
which commenced more than seventeen years ago, there have been various changes
in management and outside accounting professionals, and there have been various
relocations of the Company’s offices. Current management likely does
not have all the records from that period of time to provide to the auditors in
order to re-audit the transactions. As such, to re-audit those
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
would be very difficult, if not impossible. Clearly the cost to
re-audit those financial statements would not provide meaningful benefit to the
Company or its shareholders.
Bruce
K. Nelson
Chief
Financial Officer
|
6033
W. Century Boulevard
Suite
895
Los
Angeles, California 90045
|
Telephone: 310.641.4234
Email: bnelson@gceholdings.com
Web: www.gceholdings.com
|
We
believe that our original response to your original comment was reasonable in
the circumstances. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the
Staff reconsider our original response. This Company was under the
premise that Rule 2-05 and the obligation to include the reports of the two
prior accountants was only applicable to 1933 Act filings. We also
did not investigate the need to obtain these reports because (i) the financial
statements referred to in those reports were issued five or more years ago and
have no relevance to the Company’s current operations, (ii) the financial
information referred to in the financial statements audited by Tanner LC and
Eide Bailly LLP relates solely to this Company’s discontinued operations, and
(iii) all financial information presented in the current financial statements,
other than the information summarized in the “from inception” column, was
audited by our current auditors, who have audited our financial statements for
the past five years.
Furthermore,
if we are required to follow the technical requirements of Rule 2-05, we have
been informed that this Company will have to incur substantial additional fees
to engage both Tanner LC and Eide Bailly LLP solely for the purposes of issuing
audit reports confirming the information that was contained in their prior audit
reports. We again respectfully request that the Company be spared the
effort, delay and expense of obtaining these audit reports regarding financial
statements that are outdated, relate to discontinued operations, and are not
questioned or disputed. We note that Rule 2-05 does permit companies
to omit the reports of other accountants in annual reports for proxy and
information statements. We respectfully request that the
Commission extend that exception to the Company in this case.
Note C-Jatropha Business
Venture
GCE MexicoI, LLC, page
F-17
2. At
the outset of our response, we would like to reiterate certain
facts. The consolidated financial statements that were filed in the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, consisted of the financial
statements of the Company and of Asideros Globales Corporativo
(Asideros). This Company owns 1% of the capital stock of
Asideros, and GCE Mexico I, LLC (“GCE Mexico”) owns 99% of the
stock. Asideros owns the assets in Mexico, including land, plantation
development assets, equipment, etc. Furthermore, Asideros is liable
under the mortgage and other liabilities. The financial statements of
GCE Mexico, which would only consist of an investment in Asideros and preferred
membership equity, are not consolidated. We acknowledge that in Note
A and in Note C, there are certain references to the consolidation of GCE
Mexico. These references are incorrect and need to be corrected to
clarify that the financial statements of Asideros have been consolidated, and
that minority interest represents the membership interests of members of GCE
Mexico other than the Company. We would propose to amend the language
of these two footnotes to correctly clarify these facts.
Bruce
K. Nelson
Chief
Financial Officer
|
6033
W. Century Boulevard
Suite
895
Los
Angeles, California 90045
|
Telephone: 310.641.4234
Email: bnelson@gceholdings.com
Web: www.gceholdings.com
|
SFAS 94
(Consolidation), paragraph 1, describes the underlying basis of consolidated
financial statements, and that is that “there is a presumption that consolidated
statements are more meaningful than separate statements and that they are
usually necessary for a fair presentation when one of the companies in the group
directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in the other
companies.” SFAS 94, paragraph 2 clarifies that “the usual condition
for a controlling financial interest is ownership of a majority voting interest,
and therefore, as a general rule ownership by one company, directly or
indirectly, of over fifty per cent of the outstanding voting shares or another
company is a condition pointing toward consolidation.” The Company
clearly holds, either directly (1%) or indirectly through GCE Mexico (49.5%) a
50.5% majority voting interest in Asideros, which would generally lead to a
conclusion that Asideros should be consolidated with the Company.
Not only
does the Company own a 50.5% majority interest in the stock of Asideros, the
Company controls and operates Asideros. Asideros was formed before
GCE Mexico was formed. Asideros identified the 5,149 acre Jatropha
farm in Mexico which it intended to acquire and operate. GCE Mexico
was subsequently formed solely to facilitate the passive investment by investors
in the 5,149 acre farm. Asideros is controlled by this
Company. The principal executive officer of Asideros is Richard
Palmer, the Chief Executive Officer of this Company, and all other employees and
managers are appointed by Richard Palmer. The investors in GCE Mexico
have not appointed any officers or directors of Asideros, and they are not
represented in the management of Asideros.
Furthermore,
the operating agreement of GCE Mexico gives this Company control over Asideros
and the 5,149 acre farm project. The Company is designated as the
“Manager” of the operations in Mexico under the Limited Liability Company
Agreement of GCE Mexico. The responsibilities of the Manager are
defined to be “have full, complete and exclusive authority, power and discretion
to manage and control the business, property and affairs of the Company, to make
all decisions regarding those matters, to supervise, direct and control the
actions of the officers, if any, of the Company and to perform any and all other
actions customary or incident to the management of the Company’s business,
property and affairs.” Other duties of the Manager are described to
include “identifying the land, aggregating, negotiating the purchase, managing
the project development process and the Company on a day-to-day basis, . .
.” It is clear from the Limited Liability Company Agreement of GCE
Mexico, that this Company was granted the right to control (i) GCE Mexico, (ii)
Asideros and (iii) the operations of the Jatropha farm.
Generally
accepted accounting principles have provided for, or allowed, certain
majority-owned subsidiaries not to be consolidated under certain
circumstances. SFAS 94, paragraph 9, eliminated many of the
circumstances for non-consolidation that had previously been allowed under ARB
51 (Consolidated Financial Statements), including non-consolidation due to a
relatively large minority interest and foreign subsidiaries. However,
SFAS 94 continued to allow for non-consolidation of a majority-owned subsidiary
when control is likely to be temporary and control does not rest with the
majority owner. C51.102 of the Current Text identified such
circumstances disallowing consolidation to include when “the subsidiary is in
legal reorganization or in bankruptcy or operates under foreign exchange
restrictions, controls, or other governmentally imposed uncertainties so severe
that they cast significant doubt on the parent’s ability to control the
subsidiary.” Clearly, none of these circumstances identified by SFAS
94 apply to Asideros nor would any of these conditions provide for
non-consolidation of Asideros.
Bruce
K. Nelson
Chief
Financial Officer
|
6033
W. Century Boulevard
Suite
895
Los
Angeles, California 90045
|
Telephone: 310.641.4234
Email: bnelson@gceholdings.com
Web: www.gceholdings.com
|
In
summary, we believe that SFAS 94 requires consolidation of Asideros with the
Company because 1) the Company owns a controlling financial interest in Asideros
as a result of its ownership of a majority voting interest, 2) SFAS 94 does not
allow for the non-consolidation of Asideros due to control being temporary or
not resting with the majority owner, and 3) the Company, as Manager, controls
virtually all aspects of the operations of Asideros. Furthermore,
based on our conclusion that SFAS 94 required consolidation of Asideros, we do
not believe that FIN46(R) applies or requires consideration.
Exhibits
3. As
we have previously indicated, this Company believes that the Lodemo Group
management agreement is an agreement made in the ordinary course of business
and, therefore, not a “material contract.” However, we agree that the
Company’s operations for its first Jatropha farm are significantly dependent
upon that agreement and, accordingly, we agree to file that service agreement as
an exhibit to the Company’s amended Form 10-K. However, as we stated
in our June 4, 2009 letter, we currently anticipate that we will enter into
similar service agreements with other local service providers if and when we
commence operating additional Jatropha farms in other Central American
countries. Although the general parameters of the fees paid to the
Lodemo Group are disclosed in the Form 10-K, the disclosure of the individual
fees and components of the compensation paid to the Lodemo Group could
materially and adversely affect our negotiations with other service companies in
the future. Accordingly, the Company will request that the individual
components of the Lodemo Group fees be kept confidential. As a
result, the Company will submit a confidential treatment request with the SEC
before filing the Lodemo Group as an exhibit.
* * * * *
As
requested by the Staff, we hereby acknowledge that:
·
|
This
Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in
the filing;
|
·
|
Staff
comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not
foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the
filing; and
|
·
|
This
Company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding
initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities
laws of the United States.
|
Please
direct questions regarding this letter to the undersigned at (310)
641-4234.
|
Sincerely
yours,
|
|
GLOBAL
CLEAN ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.
/s/ BRUCE
NELSON
|
|
Bruce
Nelson,
Chief
Financial Officer
|
Bruce
K. Nelson
Chief
Financial Officer
|
6033
W. Century Boulevard
Suite
895
Los
Angeles, California 90045
|
Telephone: 310.641.4234
Email: bnelson@gceholdings.com
Web: www.gceholdings.com
|
Enclosures
cc:
|
Mr.
Richard Palmer (w/enclosures)
Mr.
David Walker (w/enclosures)
Mr.
Scott Gilderman,CPA (w/enclosures)
Mr.
Craig Allen, CPA(w/enclosures)
Mr.
Mark Andersen, CPA (w/enclosures)
Ms.
Alawna Echols , CPA (w/enclosures)
Istvan
Benko, Esq. (w/enclosures)
|
Bruce
K. Nelson
Chief
Financial Officer
|
6033
W. Century Boulevard
Suite
895
Los
Angeles, California 90045
|
Telephone: 310.641.4234
Email: bnelson@gceholdings.com
Web: www.gceholdings.com
|