Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[wEaReLeGiOn]

Yet more baloney.

Therefore a simple reading of the facts, because I prefer reality over baloney-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u

(2) Authority of Court To Prohibit Persons From Serving as Officers and Directors.— In any proceeding under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court may prohibit, conditionally or unconditionally, and permanently or for such period of time as it shall determine, any person who violated section 78j (b) of this title or the rules or regulations thereunder from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 78l of this title or that is required to file reports pursuant to section 78o (d) of this title if the person’s conduct demonstrates unfitness to serve as an officer or director of any such issuer.
(3) Money Penalties in Civil Actions.—
(A) Authority of commission.— Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has violated any provision of this chapter, the rules or regulations thereunder, or a cease-and-desist order entered by the Commission pursuant to section 78u–3 of this title, other than by committing a violation subject to a penalty pursuant to section 78u–1 of this title, the Commission may bring an action in a United States district court to seek, and the court shall have jurisdiction to impose, upon a proper showing, a civil penalty to be paid by the person who committed such violation.
(B) Amount of penalty.—
(i) First tier.— The amount of the penalty shall be determined by the court in light of the facts and circumstances. For each violation, the amount of the penalty shall not exceed the greater of
(I) $5,000 for a natural person or $50,000 for any other person, or
(II) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation.
(ii) Second tier.— Notwithstanding clause (i), the amount of penalty for each such violation shall not exceed the greater of
(I) $50,000 for a natural person or $250,000 for any other person, or
(II) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation, if the violation described in subparagraph (A) involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement.
(iii) Third tier.— Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), the amount of penalty for each such violation shall not exceed the greater of
(I) $100,000 for a natural person or $500,000 for any other person, or
(II) the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation, if—
(aa) the violation described in subparagraph (A) involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and
(bb) such violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.

Therefore, complete and utter baloney- A $5,000 is in order for a simple one line accounting error. When fraud is involved, third tier measures come into effect.

(5) Fraud would involve a PERMANENT officer ban. This is a TEMPORARY one, in line with an accounting error. The SEC doesn't allow temporary officer bans for accounting fraud.


Now to dispense with your Derivative suit baloney.

http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/120515/JBI-INC_10-Q/R17.htm

On March 16, 2012, a shareholder derivative suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the State of Massachusetts, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and naming as defendants each member of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company, including current directors Messrs. John Bordynuik, Robin Bagai and John Wesson, and certain former directors. The complaint alleges that the individual members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the alleged improper accounting treatment of certain media credits acquired that were reported in certain 2009 financial statements of the Company, and public disclosures regarding the status of its Plastic2Oil, or P2O, process. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation at this time.

Therefore, complete and utter baloney- JBI is a "nominal defendant" in the Grampp's derivative suit, so obviously your quip of "impossible to lose" is baloney, since JBI is a defendant.

(1) A derative[sic] suit is against officers ON BEHALF of the company. It's impossible for JBII to "lose" a derative[sic] suit -- they are beneficiary!

Here is a post of mine outlining what a derivative suit entails. I heard thousands of times how shareholders shouldn't embrace the Grampps suit; that it's actually a "strike suit" that "Grampps" was fictitious, that "ambulance chasers" were responsible for the derivative suit, that it was a conspiracy suit instigated by *hedge fundies stuck on stupid* etc, etc, ad nauseum.


lol good grief lol lol lol.