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.
I haven't checked your math, but that appears to be a much more accurate summary, aside from the "shuffled around" shares comment. One thing I don't quite understand is the FBO acronym. "For the benefit of," perhaps? I am not sure what "named FBO on the original" you are referring to.
Anyway, you are right about that Form 4 from January; it certainly looks erroneous.
Cheers. I miss the honest debate...haven't had much of that of late.
Your share comparison for Mr. Wesson is neither fair nor valid. Your claim:
If that were the case, then why would JBI and RockTenn agree that the addendum would be in substantially the same form as a nonexistent document?
Yes. The license area will also be different for each site.
Regardless, it appears that the basic terms of any such Agreement Addendum have been agreed upon by JBI and RockTenn.
I like his credentials. Thanks for posting his petition to serve as JBI's counsel.
Thank you for the clarity, as well as your subsequent self-correction (I do that frequently myself). I appreciate it.
One quick note though, regarding this:
I don't see it either. I know I, and everyone else I have spoken to who has invested in JBI, did not invest in the company for the media credits. It wasn't even a consideration.
MLM, I have not followed this debate, but there are far too many uncertainties to give a definitive answer to this question. First, insurance is largely a matter of contract, and those contracts can be very lengthy. One would need to take a careful look at the policy before one could determine what that policy covers. Any doubt is ordinarily resolved in favor of the insured, but without seeing the language of the policy, we can only guess. And no, I have not read or seen JBI's insurance policies (yes, there is likely more than one in place).
Second, coverage involves two separate duties on the part of the insurer: (1) the duty to defend, and (2) the duty to indemnify. The former duty is far broader than the latter. So, assuming a lawsuit can reasonably be construed to afford coverage, an insurer may well have to defend the suit, even though the question of indemnity remains open. For this reason, insurers will sometimes defend under a reservation of rights, leaving open the issue of indemnity depending on what transpires during the proceedings.
Related to the first two issues, insurance policies often contain exemptions for certain types of acts. The more severe the misconduct, the greater the likelihood it will be exempted from coverage. Often, the details of the misconduct (if any) do not come to light until the evidence is revealed (thus bringing into play the second issue above). Neither you nor I can surmise at the pleading stage of a lawsuit what will ultimately be proven following discovery, and trial, of the matter.
And there are so many other questions to be asked. What are the limits of liability? Who is covered under the policy? What is the policy term? What actions, if any, ultimately trigger liability, and when did those actions occur? I am only scratching the surface of the various considerations. Your question is about as far from black and white as they come.
How is that for an answer without an answer? : )
I should add that he reported some additional purchases made in a representative capacity.
What hasn't been posted to my knowledge (despite the snide comments of some) is Mr. Howell's certified trading history. To summarize (in simplified form), he reported the following purchases:
4/12/10: 5,000 shares at $4.92 per share;
1,000 shares at $4.85 per share.
5/18/10: 1,000 shares at $3.70 per share.
5/19/10: 1,000 shares at $3.55 per share.
5/20/10: 1,500 shares at $3.00 per share.
I suspect it will now be a battle between plaintiff's firms for lead plaintiff: with Leverty (as local counsel) and Rosen pushing for Timothy J. Amos and O'Mara (as local counsel) and Glancy pushing for Howard L. Howell.
We have a long wait before JBI's responsive pleading deadline is before us.
Stocker,
According to movant Howard, he bought shares as early as April 12, 2010. According to movant Amos, he bought shares as early as February 2, 2010. Both would have preceded the restatement (unlike the case of Pancoe). I don't recall either movant reporting any sales, but that would not preclude their ability to serve as lead plaintiff.
I think scion posted at least one of the movant's certified purchase history. The other one is available on Pacer, or perhaps it has been posted here as well. I can try to get a copy to you if you like.
Yes, really. The plaintiff who filed this action states that she purchased 1,000 shares on May 9, 2011, at $3.85 per share.
As of 10:00 p.m. EST, no one has moved to be lead plaintiff in this case. That clock is quickly winding down.
This latest one (Milberg LLP) is worth a good chuckle.
I agree completely. You clearly understand these issues extremely well. Cheers!
Agreed. Certification appears to be rarely denied on numerousity grounds.
This case is definitely being driven by class action plaintiff's counsel (or hopeful class action plaintiff's counsel).
Looking forward to reading more of your posts....
Absolutely. Nice explanation. And thanks for sharing your knowledge.
As of 10:00 pm on today's date, August 10, 2011, the court's online electronic filing system (Pacer) reflected a single purported class action lawsuit filed against JBI in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. That lawsuit was brought by a plaintiff who attested to purchasing 1,000 shares of JBI on May 9, 2011. On the same date the action was filed (July 28, 2011), plaintiff's counsel published a notice informing potential class members of the opportunity to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.
As a result of the above, other class action firms (understandably) have been searching for a more appropriate lead plaintiff, who has a more substantial financial interest in the litigation. The desire to do so is largely self-evident, as the appointed lead plaintiff in a certified class action becomes the decision-maker of the class, and the one who holds primary responsibility for choosing (yup, you guessed it) lead counsel (subject to court approval). For this reason, it should come as no surprise to see additional class action plaintiffs' firms soliciting potential plaintiffs in an effort to jump in the action.
As of the time and date referenced at the start of this post, no other prospective lead plaintiffs have moved for appointment as lead counsel. This lawsuit is, of course, in its infancy, so only time will tell if another investor steps up to the plate. That "opportunity" will eventually close, however, and the court will assess the plaintiff(s) that have filed appropriate motions within the requisite time.
This is my personal assessment of the matter, so I invite any contrary opinions or constructive criticism.
Exceptional post. Thank you for taking the time to detail this information, and nice job of explaining both the legal and procedural/practical considerations. Cheers.