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.
Thank you, Frank. Sadly, there are far more "mistakes" than I would ever have time to correct. I will chime in when time permits.
A link, for reference/information purposes:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_408
Common sense and the context provided by the judgments, which essentially demand that the things that some would pretend weren't done aren't done again, lead any reasonable person to believe that there actually were bad acts and that they were neither imaginary nor unintended.
JBI has been assessed a civil penalty which can be viewed by interested parties as either meager or steep. For a company that can only muster a 3 digit quarterly gross profit on its primary product line it's staggering.
Upon further review it appears that Mr. Wesson has not personally made a "six-figure investment" of JBI shares in the open market since the beginning of time, let alone in 2012.
If I'm wrong let me know.
No, this is so false on so many levels.
If Baldwin takes this to court, and does not settle, Bordynuik will practically be forced to admit on an open stand that the SEC allegations are true. (...and the settlement explicitly states that Double Jeopardy can not be used as a defense to not testify either).
Or the SEC voids the settlement.
Enter Derivative suit....
The lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the Derivative suit now have Bordynuik publicly admitting the charges ( that track the SEC charges) are true.
They will no doubt use that information and the outcome would be pretty easy to predict.
Hey Mr. Music....ya sure sound good to me.....
JB Resigned as an officer? Really? Someone may not have gotten the memo.....
List of Officers Due: 4/30/2013
The more important question is: How much of John Bordynuik's ill-gotten gains will he be required to disgorge to the SEC?
EP:
Although I have no opinion on the speculative portion of your post, it was a great read. I'm glad I took a look. It is rare to see this degree of thought shared with other investors (as opposed to the polarized, antagonistic commentary I had become accustom to). Cheers to you!
There is a purported class action, much the same as there is a purported shareholder derivative action brought by a single "shareholder" with an undisclosed interest in the company. Both actions are pending a judicial determination of the propriety of the action.
In which case was a class actually certified?
Is that a rhetorical question?
....and can I get a release the whom?......
There will be no disgorgement of ill-gotten gains absent a finding of ill-gotten gains, which I do not think will happen. I hope that answers these questions:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74708451
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74672193
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74625413
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72005951
Also, there is not a specified "SEC rate" for prejudgment interest that I am aware of. Hope that answers the other question you have been repeatedly asking me:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71621352
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71146408
How about if you search the U.S. Code and apprise me of any such "SEC rate" that you discover?
The law does not prohibit a person from merely acknowledging the receipt of a summons....or shouting it from a rooftop for that matter.
Maybe you missed the part about it being illegal for those shareholders to tell you that they had received a subpoena, if they had.
Except in accordance with section 17, no person or company shall disclose at any time, except to his, her or its counsel,
(a) the nature or content of an order under section 11 or 12; or
(b) the name of any person examined or sought to be examined under section 13, any testimony given under section 13, any information obtained under section 13, the nature or content of any questions asked under section 13, the nature or content of any demands for the production of any document or other thing under section 13, or the fact that any document or other thing was produced under section 13. (emphasis added)
This is getting a little harder to believe as time goes on:
"To be clear, it really doesn't bother me one bit that the documents at issue were publicized on a message board."
Cite a law.
Except in accordance with section 17, no person or company shall disclose at any time, except to his, her or its counsel,
(a) the nature or content of an order under section 11 or 12
2. "The nature of the investigation identified in the order" wasn't disclosed.
Did you ask Mr Bordynuik?
I don't think that the OSC is interested in chatting with 200+ witnesses whose names appeared on a withdrawn registration statement either.
I should have said that the only things that have been posted to this board are copies of 2 cover letters referencing enclosed summonses . . . .
I thought that the point of the post was simple enough.
I was responding to the following incorrect assertion:
"If it has anything to do with JBII whatsoever, it is required to describe so by the very regulations cited in the correspondence:"
The linked documents are not required to carry such a description. The order itself hasn't been posted to this board. Hence, the people that provided the documents, having neither identified themselves nor the contents of the order (at least we have had no proof of that ON THE BOARD) have not broken the law.
Except in accordance with section 17, no person or company shall disclose at any time, except to his, her or its counsel,
(a) the nature or content of an order under section 11 or 12
I forwarded that link to brent hornberger, he is doing the interveiws and was not happy stating that was supposed to be confidential information.
If you choose to believe that the documents aren't related to an order that involves an investigation of the activities of
JB/JBI, that's fine.....I'm sure whatever evidence you have of that provides you comfort that that is the case.
The answer to this question should be provided by the OSC, hopefully soon. I look forward to it and any comments that you might have about it.
The thing is, readers of this board have only seen copies of a cover letter and 2 summonses, not the order itself, and as you quoted "An order under this section shall describe the matter to be investigated".
Whoever has provided these redacted summons copies has thought this through very thoroughly. The law is very clear about it being a violation to either 1)identify themselves or 2)reveal the contents of the order under which they were summoned. They have done neither.
You may not agree, but I think it is common sense that the subject matter of the order somehow involves JBI.....the risk to those who have provided the documents suggesting that that is the case is too great for that implication to have been made falsely.
Are you out of your mind? Do you honestly believe that you could successfully sue the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Government watch dog over corporations publicly traded on U.S. stock markets?
The underlying allegations laid out in the complaint can't be refuted.
If you are going to pose arguments that I haven't made and then refute those arguments, what the heck do you need me for? You should be the person responding to this post.
Update Kidd v JBI Inc et al - 17 Nov 11 - File No. 2011025557
My original question was about John Wesson and what happened to his trust shares, not JB.
Yes, it is quite obvious that JBI RE #2, LLC, is a shell that was set up to take title to newly acquired real estate. It makes smart business sense to do so, as it limits potential liability exposure (depending on the circumstances of course).
You should see the corporate matrix for major commercial real estate companies. It can be quite dizzying tracing which entities are related to which and how (think of an extremely complicated flow chart).
I am happy to see the sign of further positive development!
Cheers!
Have you got a copy of the amended complaint?
Good points, Steady.
Hopefully this practice will be reigned in.
At least it is a talking point among those in charge.
http://sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-172.htm
Just to waste a post....
You haven't what?
I never said the statements you now attribute to me. Specifically, I certainly never said this:
"It's impossible to prove what doesn't exist, thus naked shorting must exist in jbii"
The analysis is applicable to any company. Hence it is applicable to JBI. Hence I have disproved the NSS fairy tale, as requested.
There's no question NSS exists.
Sorry, I don't see how this addresses JBI specifically. The analysis seems generally applicable to any company. You have conceded that NSS occurs. I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not NSS is occurring with respect to JBI, but I am happy to see whatever data you have to disprove that such is taking place.
I thought that you would understand this (of course it's a sentence...it was missing a comma):
On 8/24/09, whatever due diligence that his fiduciary duty as CEO required prior to signing the agreement letter was woefully inadequate, irresponsible and incompetent in that it should have resulted in his awareness that the "media credits had no value" and failed to do so.
The CEO has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to perform a measure of due diligence prior to entering into any material agreement on behalf of the company. On 10/20/10 the legal firm representing the company acknowledged in a letter to the SEC that "the media credits had no value and should be written off".
Did John Bordynuik have the obligation to ascertain the value of the media credits, later acknowledged by him to have no value, prior to signing the letter agreement on 8/24/09?
Thanks for your reply. I was quite amused by your analogy (still smiling). I'd be very pleased to review any data you've compiled relative to the existence, or nonexistence, of short selling JBI. Please email/PM/post/send it my way. Thanks.
The way they did it can't be done on a Pinksheet stock.
In case you missed this, I was hoping for your opinion:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71390817
Given the above, which of the following conclusions do you believe applies to the company CEO?
1. On 8/24/09 whatever due diligence that his fiduciary duty as CEO required prior to signing the agreement letter was woefully inadequate, irresponsible and incompetent in that it should have resulted in his awareness that the "media credits had no value" and failed to do so.
or
2. On 8/24/09 he was fully aware that the "media credits had no value", executing the letter agreement by which they were acquired, and allowing or causing their inclusion as a Current Asset valued at $9,997,134 in the records of the corporation despite that awareness.
If you believe that any conclusion other than one of the above can be drawn regarding Mr. Bordynuik's state of mind on 8/24/09 based on what was known then or what has become known since please share that conclusion.
I think it is much easier to NSS Bell than JBII.
More reasons the NSS fairy tale is just that.
The SEC’s order finds that Bell improperly relied on the market maker exception in his line of business that essentially loaned large amounts of hard-to-borrow stock to broker-dealers, who then provided their customers with locates on those shares and lucrative stock loans of those shares. The customers then sold short certain securities that they may not have otherwise been able to without Bell’s participation. However, because the stock being provided by Bell was not truly available for delivery to the broker-dealers or their short selling customers, Bell actually was effecting illegal “naked” short sales.
Thank you for the clarification. The SEC does appear to be calling the media credits worthless in those excerpts you quoted. What I had recalled was the SEC stating that the initial value of the media credits was $1M, but they should have been written off in the same quarter as acquisition due to their unreliable future benefit. For example, the SEC wrote, in paragraph 18:
(T)he $1,000,000 in consideration paid by JBI for the media credits in its August 24, 2009 transaction with Domark was both a reliable basis for valuing the media credits and a correct reflection of the perceived value of the media credits at the time of the transaction.
Thank you for the clarification. The SEC does appear to be calling the media credits worthless in those excerpts you quoted. What I had recalled was the SEC stating that the initial value of the media credits was $1M, but they should have been written off in the same quarter as acquisition due to their unreliable future benefit. For example, the SEC wrote, in paragraph 18:
(T)he $1,000,000 in consideration paid by JBI for the media credits in its August 24, 2009 transaction with Domark was both a reliable basis for valuing the media credits and a correct reflection of the perceived value of the media credits at the time of the transaction.
Am I wrong in thinking that your intent in that statement is to suggest that JBI management didn't "premeditatedly" reflect a worthless asset on its balance sheet? You did read the complaint, right? Of course you did.
John (if I may call you that)
settling, by nature, is an admittance to the actions accused.