Landbridge Holdings: Questions for Management and How the Bulls’ Related Party Math Does Not Add Up

Dear LB Management, Chair of the Board David Capobianco, and the LB Board:

1. Related Party Data Center Revenue Question – How exactly did LB recognize the $8 million deposit as revenue in December 2024? Did your auditor Deloitte examine this transaction and audit whether there were appropriate internal controls in place? Here is why we ask:

   1. In our report, we explain why we find this suspect. LB had just entered into a Lease Development Agreement in November 2024, received the $8 million deposit associated with this agreement just one month later, and immediately recognized it as revenue. We think this $8 million deposit was prematurely recognized as revenue, and thus we believe 2024 revenue should be restated lower.

   2. Although we believe we have demonstrated sufficient basis for our opinion, one of your own shareholders, who goes by the name “Sockfeet Research” also shows concern: “The Powered Land deal does seem sketchy and I agree the timing is suspect.” Seeing that Sockfeet and we are in agreement, it seems a matter of interest for shareholders, and thus you should clarify or restate your 2024 results.

2. Produced water royalty fees compared to TPL – How and why are your produced water royalties ($0.10-$0.25 per barrel) 2x greater than TPL’s produced water royalties ($0.08 - $0.10 per barrel), per your respective 10Ks? Here is why we ask:

   1. We observe a wide unexplained variance between your and TPL’s royalty fees, both on a reported basis, and also if we calculate them ourselves (as we explain in our report). We considered comparability (e.g., location, client base), looked at other water peers, and also skim oil revenues, but none of these explain such a wide variance.

   2. The only differentiating factors we see between LB and its peers: (i) LB’s heavy dependence on related parties for revenues (ii) a series of suspicious transactions, such as the data center related party deposit recognized as revenue, and also the Wolfbone transaction, which was not a related party transaction but was constructed to give the appearance it generated revenue for LB. These and other observations led us to consider that your water royalty rate is suspect, and that consequently, portions of both your related and non-related party revenues were suspect.

   3. There is evident confusion among your stakeholders regarding this question. This Sockfeet Research disagrees with our produced water royalty fee analysis, but as we show in this report, Sockfeet’s analysis is mathematically incorrect, full of errors, and also irrelevant to our analysis in our report.

3. Accounting oversight concerns: LB only has a dozen employees, your long-time CFO/CEO abruptly left last year, and your auditor does not audit your internal controls for financial reporting. Worse, 2 out of 3 of your audit committee members oversaw serious accounting problems in their prior companies. In these conditions we would expect to see accounting mistakes or manipulation.

   1. Deloitte did not audit LB’s internal control over financial reporting. Would you have Deloitte audit these in your past results as well as all results, going forward?

   2. Why did Longtime LB/WB CFO and CO-CEO, Steven Jones, resign soon after LB’s IPO?

   3. Will you replace your current audit committee members with directors with more relevant audit and financial reporting experience?

For the full report:

2025 08 06 - LB - Questions for Management and How the Bulls Related Party Math Does Not A.

Download • 3.80MB