Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
More restatements coming to a home near you, I'd bet on it.
Almost two years after purchasing the huge money losing business named Pakit (Pakit had over 2 million in net losses in 2010), their still working to limit deficiencies by consolidating Pak-It’s product line, and developing an internal computer network to host the new accounting software = more expenses, possibly even bigger losses and more restatements coming soon.
The Original 10K:
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), as of December 31, 2010. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officers have concluded that there exists no material weaknesses in its internal control systems that impact our ability to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules.www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011002119/f10k2010_jbi.htm
Amended yesterday:
"Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), as of December 31, 2010. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are ineffective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules."....
These material weaknesses are a result of a lack of policies and procedures, with the associated internal controls, to appropriately address routine transactions, as well as a lack of a sufficient number of qualified personnel to timely account for such transactions in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Management has identified the following groups of control deficiencies, each of which, in the aggregate, represents a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010.
These deficiencies exist within Pak-It, which was a private company prior to being acquired by the Company, and not subject to audits or policies and procedures that necessitate being a public company. These deficiencies in internal controls resulted in the recording of numerous audit adjustments and delayed our financial statement closing process for the fiscal year ended 2009. The Company has been working towards eliminating these deficiencies by instituting new policies, procedures, and accounting systems. However, to the extent these deficiencies continue to exist, the accuracy and time lines of financial reporting may be adversely affected.
The significant deficiencies related to Pak-It’s internal control systems are from an inadequate design for internal processes related to the gathering and inputting of sales and purchasing information, and the relay of such information to operations, shipping and receiving. The work environment and organizational culture of Pak-It was considered unsatisfactory by the Company, with regards to the internal control reporting standards imposed on public companies, and more specifically imposed pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Pak-It’s organizational culture and computer software did not foster an environment where supervisors or controllers could be held accountable for specific transactions or operational initiatives. The largest component of this deficiency was in Pak-Its accounting and order-tracking software, which was a DOS program developed in-house at Pak-It during the 1980s. Pak-It has now, as of April 4th 2011, gone live with a new accounting software package that will enhance accountability and efficiency in purchasing, receiving, operations, sales, inventory management, and shipping. The Company is also working to limit deficiencies by consolidating Pak-It’s product line, and developing an internal computer network to host the new accounting software, which will provide the appropriate access levels for designated job positions.
Management acknowledges its responsibility for internal controls over financial reporting and seeks to continually improve these controls. In order to achieve compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, we are performing system and process documentation and evaluation needed to comply with Section 404, which is both costly and challenging. We believe our process for documenting, evaluating and monitoring our internal control over financial reporting is consistent with the objectives of Section 404 of the Act.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003733/f10k2010a1_jbi.htm
Purchased and given shares are two completely different things. I hope your not implying that he purchased all those shares?
Explanation of Responses:
1. 10,000 restricted shares were issued on July 19, 2010 as a one-time grant for appointment to the Board of Directors. 50,000 restricted shares were issued on April 1, 2011 as a grant for Director services in 2010.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003404/xslF345X03/f4043010bagai_jbi.xml
I completely disagree, there are no reasonable excuses for the 6 month delay in the production of cash sales. Last December they were given permission to fully operate.
If they are improving the modular system and making it easier to train installers that would be a good reason for delay.
So your saying, they in essence shut down the cash printing machine to figure out modular racking/training, while losing almost 3 million per quarter - and this is good?
If you just think about the improvements that have been made in the processor in the last six months or so, it suggests a good reason for the delay.
They should have been pumping out fuel and sales, generating income since December with processor number one, while building, making improvements,figuring out the modular rack system and tweaking/training with processor number two.
They've only announced a couple of sales consisting of what a week or two of full production? If true, then the blending facility that was purchased and subsequently no longer needed, should be chuck full and overflowing with fuel after 6-7 months of production of 109 barrel per day production - even if they took 4 months off to tweak, etc.
It will be interesting to see if the fuel assets they've created at 109 barrels per day will be fully disclosed and separated as assets or hidden - tired of the BS where's the 109 barrel a day FUEL since there's been hardly any sales?
Paula, this post isn't meant to be argumentative, I'm just getting tired of the excuses being made for the lack of production and or sales. I completely, agree with a earlier post that said "it's time to put up - or shut up."
Sure, May 17th 2010 the Quarterly report was due, a extension was filed and then they later reported the March Quarterly report Late in mid July. On or around May 25th they were found to be delinquent and had to add the letter E to the JBII symbol.
So they have been late, and since then they've consistently filed for extensions from the inability to meet original due dates.
So basically semantics, they are consistenly late on meeting the original due dates requiring them to file for extensions.
Can you please show me one instance where JBII has been LATE in their filings? Granted they have had EXTENSIONS but they have always filed ON TIME within those extensions and to the best of my knowledge they have never been late with their filings.
At least that's one area (late filings) where they've proven to be consistent.
Guess we will know more about sales totals in August...
after the 10Q is released...
and yes, I know "he said it would be late"...
but even LATE is STILL AUGUST!
Until then... SELL JBII! (if anyone is a mind to do so!)
or wait patiently!
Closing your eyes to any competitor either private or publicly trading is a huge mistake IMO. Agilyx is relevant to the discussion here, as a competitor fighting in the same space of plastic to oil conversion.
thank you for the clarification
they are NOT a public company that does not trade on any
exchange anywhere in the world
for a minute I thought I was on the wrong board
this is the JBI board that is a public company that trades under
the symbol JBII
have you ever heard of them?
maybe investors hub will start a Agilyx board somewhere else and
all parties concerned can discuss the slurry they produce that
still needs to be refined into some kind of useable fuel
somewhere
thank you for the clarification
While the website has yet to be updated and still shows the 1,000sq' footprint, it's now being reported that the new footprint is around 2000sq' from John's mouth to Briggs ears.
•Our processor runs continuously, currently at 20T/day, and its footprint is small (less than 1000 square feet).
The attached slide shows the total operating space needed for a 1,000sq' processor is 3,000sq' of space. With the doubling of the footprint, it's only reasonable that the space needed to operate has incresed as well.
We know the Agilyx footprint is much larger and cost millions so lets be done with this. JBI is the competition and will set the standards. IMO. I am content right here with JBII.
LV - this post is not meant to be argumentative, I just haven't seen any links that show the size of the footprint of Agilyx's processor or the operating space needed, do you have one?
Here you go, I remember making a note of Skibumbz statements after the AGM. Your question just jogged my memory.
Unfortunately, this just raises more questions as to what is happening with the 30 ton processors?
Since this was slipped to a shareholder, if true, I also think it should have been announced already via their web page, to be fair to all current shareholders - this info seems material.
GLTY
skibumbz Share Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:20:46 PM
Re: fourkids_9pets post# 112487 Post # of 118767
Hey to all, great AGM, had a nice conversation with V.P. Bob Molodynia afterwards and he slipped in telling me some great info that will be PR'd soon with respect to the 20 ton processor. :-0
skibumbz Share Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:45:00 PM
Re: Sexual Healing post# 112498 Post # of 118767
LMAO! All I will say is... that the 20 ton will be the standard from here on out and with a few adjustments... John has been able to... well the results will blow you away!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm having one of those deja vu moments...
some time back, in a post or in a company statement, it was stated...
that going forward processors would be 20T, not 30T.
(Anyone remember this... or want to claim it as the source?)
At the time, I thought that a bit unusual after the time spent to develop the 30T unit. However, since I am in no position to opine on it, I just filed it away in a vague recess of my memory!
This possible retreat from 30T processors might have been because of some loss of efficiency scaling up to 30T from 20T... bringing us back to GWMAN's analysis:
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65065775
In addition to being very interesting to think about, these issues needing to be resolved ACCOUNT for some of the DELAY TIME that is being perceived since the AGM! IMHO
Per the DEC
Item 5.2
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
How do you know it's still untested at max- output by DEC......????
Link, please..????
It's already approved and permitted.......FYI
I agree 100% - funding and buying processors are two different animals, and your right he wants to control and own the processor. However, this is still out of pocket expenses couple that with the build out costs and "all the risk" is on the JV for processors still in development, and still untested at maximum outputs by the DEC.
Unfortunately, we don't know what direction it's rolling. Over six months to build a processor, c-mon!
What JV wants to hurry up and sign - to invest 10 million or 100 million buying processors and build outs to house them, with the processors still in the design stage. Worse yet they have still yet to be tested at full speed by the DEC.
Nobody, knows exactly whats going on over there, and if there's some serious problems scaling up to the 30 ton processor.
Six months really?
Well, you have to admit the ball is currently rolling.......et z
Let's see they have been building this processor since February or before = 6 months.
Must be some huge changes, sure hope it passes the upcoming inspections.
Currently it's taking over 6 months to build, so finally we agree on something - that 6 months to build a processor is ridiculous.
Lets be company specific until they sell the dead weight, and right now the company is losing 3 million per Quarter.
The 17 million number was wrong, I already admitted that several times. I was thinking net losses were around 17 million when they were actually 14 mill - when I said they burned through 17 million.
Attached is what I said exactly, spelling error and all...lol
Artiztic1 Share Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:47:01 AM
Re: BRIG_88 post# 115465 Post # of 118536
Are you sure about that, 3 processors running with the current allowed limits grosses them like 12 million, didn't they just burn through something like 17 million with the two money losing divisions that he briallantly purchased?
That's easy Rawnoc built his thesis that the processor has taken six months and counting, instead of 5 weeks because they're not building simple duplicates.
Rawnoc Share Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:57:26 AM
Re: Artiztic1 post# 118431 Post # of 118497
Nah, 5 weeks to build a duplicate machine sounds about right. Do you have a link that proves that they have been working 6 months to build a DUPLICATE machine or did you just make that up?
How do you know what they are building or not building? too funny....
Spin it any way you want, the company lost just under 3 million last Q and the only reason they have continued to survive is by printing more shares/dilution via PIPES.
Since they're currently not building duplicates, I'm sure we can still expect plenty more one time expenses, and more R&D as they tweak the new sized processors - as they try to get them approved by the DEC.
Net losses are currently huge almost 3 million last Q alone, the only reason they can countinue is because of the pipes that were issued, how long before they burn threw that pipe and issue another?
Let's hope they can get the three processors running/inspected and approved before Christmas, with enough feedstock in place to keep them running, this remains to be seen.
As far as over paying for the building who knows, what we do know is they paid twice the recorded town assessment/appraisal/ evaluation in a buyers market. They valued the whole she-bang at 180,600 that includes your acreage at 51k. Who knows why he paid - 375,000 for it, maybe it was full of plastic cups.
According to other sources here that place is littered with empty buildings.
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/subject.asp?swis=291100&sbl=1600130001008000
Nah...those numbers are as far off base as your 17 million dollar cash burn numbers....not to mention the CEO stated...."nobody cares".....as for room....well let's see how much room there is out there to place machines....i know let's use the calculations you came up with to determine JBII payed too much for the plant they're operating out of....the building?....everything in it that came with it that you know nothing about?.....the OTHER building?.....the acreage?......the infrastructure?...electrical....gas....need i go on?....any idea how much DEAD warehouse/plant space there is like that out there?....don't go into real estate is my advice to you.....
I agree over 6 months is a very long time, and makes me wonder if there are some real problems going on.
While they have him on the phone maybe they can also ask him now that the footprint is 2,000sq' what the total minimum space required is to house said footprint.
A footprint measures the size of your foot, not the room your standing in.
Since we now have posters talking about clusters of 5-10 processors, are we talking buildouts of 30,000sq' or 40,000sq' to house 10. I mean c-mon it's common sense that they can't drop a 2,000sq' machine in a 2,000sq' room, or build one in the corner, or not leave enough space between them to remove or fix/maintain them. There are also fire codes that may come into play, that may say they have to be 15 or more feet away from any wall.
If Parts break or tanks leak, they need to be able to get to them quickly and easily.
At one time, on the website it said the processor needed around 4,000sq' of space for the 1,000sq' footprint. Maybe they doubled the size of the footprint and the total space needed has gotten smaller - who knows, it's a legitimate question.
Great point!
Why wouldn't they release the AGM video - it just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Does anyone think it was great PR move not to release the AGM video, and make everyone wait for a undisclosed release date of the promotional video/infomercial?
I personally feel that this was a bad PR move, after they released the previous AGM - this showed a total lack of consistency.
Are they shy now??
I "think" your way off, 5 weeks when they've been working on one for over 6 months now, link?
Changes. Read the website and the filings. I still think it only takes 5 weeks to make a machine that's a carbon copy duplicate. I further think that if/when they make duplicate machines in quantity, say a cluster of them in one location of 5-10, it will take on average far less than 5 weeks each IMO as they make them all at once.
I think with a JV partner, for example, you will see machines cranking out left and right as they will likely just be rapid duplication at that stage. They could be custom built a bit for each JV (maybe?) then bam bam bam bam bam MOOLA.
These are my educated guesses based on info on the website, filings, and details given at the AGM presentation.
Nah, they're currently restricted in using any plastic municipal waste, per the DEC.
Nah. Since most MRFs are forced to send waste plastic to landfill at an expense yet still the MRFs tend to break-even or are profitable, JBII's MRF should have a negative expense in that it can avoid tipping fees by processing the plastic.
My post spoke of Asset reporting. Why would the company not want to shout about fuel/assets being produced by showing the numbers?
The company is currently producing a asset (fuel) it would be easy enough for JBi to place a little * breaking down fuel assets produced and stored/unsold. Since the fuel price is a moving target, he could plug in the going price of the fuel on the last day of the quarter with another little asterisk.
If the company is currently producing 109 barrels a day then that's a huge asset that requires reporting and accountability...no?
109 barrels per day over the last quarter is almost 10,000 barrels at full production - this should be broken down and reported in sales/assets - if inventories is a poor way to do so.
Fuel produced/sold/stored is something the company should be shouting from the rooftops in a clear and easy to read format in the next 10Q.
The company is currently producing a asset (fuel) it would be easy enough for JBi to place a little * breaking down fuel assets produced and stored/unsold. Since the fuel price is a moving target, he could plug in the going price of the fuel on the last day of the quarter with another little asterisk.
If the company is currently producing 109 barrels a day then that's a huge asset that requires reporting and accountability...no?
109 barrels per day over the last quarter is almost 10,000 barrels at full production - this should be broken down and reported in sales/assets - if inventories is a poor way to do so.
Fuel produced/sold/stored is something the company should be shouting from the rooftops in a clear and easy to read format in the next 10Q.
Can we agree on anything?
It depends how they expenses the costs to produce the fuel. Inventory at the end of Q1 was listed as ZERO even though fuel was obviously produced.
I've seen other oil and gas companies consistently carry a zero figure for inventory even though they had some tankers full at any point in time, and I didn't understand it but it is what it is. One thing for sure -- the feedstock inventory for be at or near zero because it's free.
I'm not bashing the company, just keeping it real.
The fuel produced will show up in two places as inventory and sales. The next quarterly report will speak to both.
Yes, 109 barrels per day is alot of product. It will be very interesting to see how much, if any of it shows up as inventory in the next quarterly report.
Don't worry though, if no fuel inventory shows up in the quarterly report in the p20 section, there will be millions of other reasons for that.
109 barrels a day is a lot of product. They have to be doing something with it if they are producing it. They have the permits. Its a go as far as production is concerned. Is there any way we can find out for sure what exactly is happening since the permits were announced?
I am not being difficult or critical, but I would like to know.
This is interesting, it shows the warehouse as being 10,476sq' right in line with my numbers. With an additional 4,280sq' of office space, this is why I prefer my own DD.
Oh, and they got a great deal - they only paid twice the value - in a buyers market.
** Commercial Property **
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Current Owner Name JBI RE #1 INC
Property Address 20 IROQUOIS ST
Town Name Niagara Falls
Total Assessed Value (94% of Market Value) $169,800
Full Market Value $180,600 Land Assessed Value $51,400
Property Type 449 - Warehouse
Lot Size Acres: 3.37 Front: 0 Depth: 0
Mailing Address 1 20 IROQUOIS ST
Mailing Address 2
Mailing City, State NIAGARA FALLS, NY
Mailing Zip Code 14303
Section, Block Lot # 160.13-1-8
Neighborhood Code 2
School District 291100
Swiss Code 291100
Parcel Status Active
County Taxable $169,800
Town Taxable $169,800
School Taxable $169,800
Village Taxable $0
Tax Code Non-Homestead
Bank Code
PHYSICAL INFORMATION
# of Bedrooms 0
# of Baths 0
# of Fireplaces 0
# of Kitchens 0
HISTORICAL SALE INFORMATION
Owner History Deed Book Deed Page Sale Date Valid Sale Sale Price
JBI RE #1 INC 2011 5934 4/4/2011 YES $375,000
20 Iroquois Inc, 3207 476 8/14/2002 YES $220,000
Ross Leasing Enterprises, & Inc, 2226 00181 11/1/1989 YES $2,000,000
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION
Property Class 449 - Warehouse
Building Sq. Footage 14,756
Assessment Per Sq. Foot $11.51
Property Use USED AS REN
TABLE SQ. FT.
F09 - Light mfg 10,476
E02 - Walk-up off 4,280
Site No. 1
Bldg No. 2
Actual Year Built 1968
Effective Year Built 0
Site No. 1
Bldg No. 1
Actual Year Built 1968
Effective Year Built 0
Site No. 1
Bldg No. 1
Actual Year Built 1968
Effective Year Built 0
Site No. 1
Bldg No. 1
Actual Year Built 1968
Effective Year Built 0
Site No. 1
Bldg No. 1
Actual Year Built 1977
Effective Year Built 0
Site No. 1
Use No. 1
Used As F09 - Light mfg
Acres 3.37
Valuation Dist 2
Rentable Sq. Ft. 10,476
Unit Code -
Total Number Of Units
Total Rent $0
Rent Type -
Lease Begin
Lease Length 0 yrs
Total Eff / 1 Bed Sq. Ft.
Number Of 1 Bed Units
Total 2 Bedroom Sq. Ft.
Number Of 2 Bed Units
Total 3 Bedroom Sq. Ft.
Number Of 3 Bed Units
Site No. 1
Use No. 2
Used As E02 - Walk-up off
Acres 3.37
Valuation Dist 2
Rentable Sq. Ft. 4,280
Unit Code -
Total Number Of Units
Total Rent $0
Rent Type -
Lease Begin
Lease Length 0 yrs
Total Eff / 1 Bed Sq. Ft.
Number Of 1 Bed Units
Total 2 Bedroom Sq. Ft.
Number Of 2 Bed Units
Total 3 Bedroom Sq. Ft.
Number Of 3 Bed Units
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/subject.asp?swis=291100&sbl=1600130001008000
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/photos/T000115/2911001600130001008000%20%20%20%200001.JPG
Artiztic1 Share Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:41:31 PM
Re: Rawnoc post# 118035 Post # of 118170
Why would I include office space?
The pictures tell the whole truth about space required per processor. Those are JBI's processors in the pictures and that is the warehouse, and those are 4 foot wide insulation panels.
Artiztic1 Share Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:33:10 PM
Re: Rawnoc post# 118026 Post # of 118170
That ladder is past the center width of this warehouse - PERIOD.
We've already been over this - I said the center of the warehouse last night.
The link below shows the warehouse where the processors follow the side wall length wise, they clearly exceed the center width wise evidenced by the attached photo by looking at the center of the rafters.
So in this 10,500sq' warehouse they can fit three processor in. leaving a minor lane in the center for a possible conveyor and forklifts will only leave a limited space for plastic storage.
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/photos/T000115/2911001600130001008000%20%20%20%200001.JPG
Even Ray Charles while blind and dead can see that...lol
Stretching, I never said the middle of the building length wise, its past the center width wise.
Wrong, footprint is space occupied by the processor, not space needed surrounding it.
I never claimed total footprint of 3500sq' - Link?
I only claimed that 3500 was the approx total space needed surrounding said processor, you can't fit a processor with a 2,000sq' footprint into a 2,000sq' building...but you already know that.
Nah, lets see how long it takes him to correctly report the total amount of minimum space needed per processor, besides - IR doesn't return phone calls.
At one time it was disclosed total space needed was around 4,000sq', but the 4,000 sq' number is now long gone. I guess the 1,000sq' footprint number sounded better.
Now when no one can argue 4+4=8, we hear that the footprint is now 2,000sq' and if you listen to everyone here they will tell you that you can cram it into a 2,000sq' room - which of course just doesn't make sense....lol
Sure throw in a couple....lol
I'm speaking of patents, if they are found to infringe on any other prior Art - they will be served a cease and desist order, or be faced with a royalty amount due if the other company decides to go that route instead.
They have the goods or they wouldn't have sold fuel to Oxy and CoCo Asphalt.....
Time will tell, they either have the goods or they don't.
I don't buy your 'patent' theory either!
A complicated process like this could never be 'patented'
Certain aspects and details can. I think you know that.
Yet you go on and on about it!
I could start a new company building a new kind of payloader,
and Caterpillar could nothing about it as long as I don't copy
any of their 'patented' details.
the end
Foot print and building space required are two different animals.
Just keeping it real.
Total footprint claim of 1000sq' of JBI's web page needs to be changed asap.
The white insulation panels are no less than 4' wide. That equals about 20' between the rear column supports. Between the processor's, I count 2 & 1/2 steel columns equaling appr. 50 feet in lenght, add in the 12-15 foot space between processors = about 65 feet in total lenght needed per.
The yellow stairs clearly exceed the center of the building. The gable end columns measuring approx. 18' apart, which tells us the stairs easily reach out 30 plus feet.
Add a 12' road to travel and load the plastic to the processors, would only leave approx 12' along the other side wall for the storage of plastic.
65 x 30 = 1950sq' add 12' lane for plastic travel and 12' storage along the opposite wall, 24 x 65 = 1560sq' + 1950 makes a total of 3510 total sq' per processor.
My point is for a cluster of only 3 processors this is going to require a company/JV to have 10,000sq' of unused empty space just sitting idle(not likely).
I see buildouts will be needed, with them taking over a year to complete from the time of any JV announcements.
In addition, If I were a possible JV I would want to see patents in hand prior to any buildout. Without said patents, JBI can't guarantee any JV that his processors don't infringe prior Art or infringe any unpublished pending Art.
That means the JV's are essentially gambling that JBi's processors will be protected from any future patent infringement and they would be building them at their own risk and absorbing all costs.