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.
Sorry for the confusion. Just not sure why you would post the article on this board. I find your posts very interesting regarding the games being played by the MM's. I've actually done more reading off site because of it. Thank you.
Just wanted to be sure permission was granted to repost the copyrighted article. Never said it wasn't real.
Are you saying this article is a ploy?
Being cash flow positive is important for them to buy/build additional units at the JV's and to staff them. IMO that would probably mean NF first.
Cash flow. Wasn't it reported after the AGM that the plan was to finish building out the NF facility?
Thanks for the post. It answers the question from yesterday on who is going to build the processors.
The contemplated structure of a Joint Venture with JBI is:
JBI will build and operate a Plastic2Oil processor at the source of the plastic waste.
JBI will receive plastic waste at no cost.
JBI will share in the revenue from the sale of fuel generated by the machine, 80% / 20% (JBI receives 80%).
As JBI staff will operate the process, JBI will assume all risks.
I most certainly did. The latest news hadn't been updated for a week to two.
And all that other latest news found here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65498349
The DD was included in my post. Sorry if you missed the link.
JBII: Latest News & DD: JBI Shipped 60,000 liters to Coco Paving! That's 3 days of processing running full on!!
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003790/f8k072011_jbi.htm
Latest Developments:
The company is working hard with the SEC to pay parking ticket fines!
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/0001213900-11-003788-index.htm
Rawnoc states it's over! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65494399
JBI's insured! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65498349
Howard G. Smith announces he's helping!
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=48547076
And all that other latest news found here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65498349
Are you saying that the first and second amendments to the 10K don't count then?
Dead wrong. The 8k null and voided the 10K for the date the 8k was filed and that date forward.
Where do you see it going this week?
Invited it? Do you have an issue with JBI? Are you concerned about the restatements or Wells Notice?
Ever mail back empty postage paid envelopes?
Nah. Just doesn't want stalkers to know where his office is. Call him Monday, I'm sure he'd be glad to give you his physical address if you are a legitimate stockholder wanting to discuss the future.
Does your car insurance policy cover Director & Officers insurance? Doesn't matter. It's specific to the company and what they are willing to pay for.
Do you have a copy of that insurance policy? Seems there are a lot of variables. Kind of like opting for collision or flood insurance.
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jan/1/241472.html
Was that Ernst & Young?
And that is why JBI submitted the restatement, engaging a top 30 audit firm to ensure it was done right. Imo it is also why the investigation did not turn up any other problems, JBI has been determined to get their filings right, since having to go through the restatement process and expense.
Until the JBI story is picked up by the AP(Associated Press) or another accredited news outlet, what we will see is paid 'news' about JBI.
"Latest News" "Latest Developments"
You aren't keeping up with the news. What about the coco 8K? The one that came out on Wednesday?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/0001213900-11-003788-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001381105&owner=exclude&count=40
Good for you LTG! Be proactive! Go for it!
Didn't quite get your mirror comment a few posts ago.
Nope: Press Release Source: JBI, Inc. On Monday May 9, 2011, 7:21 am EDT
That is interesting. Plastic windows make a lot of sense.
Can JBI process this type of automotive plastic?
Your next car may be of banana or pineapple, yes it’s true! Scientists in Brazil have developed a more effective way to use fibers from these and other plants in a new generation of automotive plastics that are stronger, lighter, and more eco-friendly than plastics now in use. They described the work, which could lead to stronger, lighter, and more sustainable materials for cars and other products.
According to Alcides Leão, Ph.D., the fibers used to reinforce the new plastics may come from delicate fruits like bananas and pineapples, but they are super strong. Some of these so-called nano-cellulose fibers are almost as stiff as Kevlar, the renowned super-strong material used in armor and bulletproof vests. Unlike Kevlar and other traditional plastics, which are made from petroleum or natural gas, nano-cellulose fibers are completely renewable.
If there is a downside to the newly discovered technology it is that the process used to produce the renewable plastic is costly. The process consists of placing the plant fibers into a device equivalent to that of a pressure cooker. Over several cycles, chemicals are added to the plants while the mixture is heated. When completed, a fine material of nano-cellulose is produced that looks like talcum powder. The good news is that while the process is costly, it only takes one poind of nano-cellulose to produce 100 pounds of the new plastic material.
Read more at American Chemicals Society Press Release.
http://ispyce.com/2011/04/plastic-car-parts-made-from-bananas-and.html
Of course it's a worthwhile pursuit. Just don't know how JBI is doing it. Can you explain?
Great Brochure. Clicked some of the links listed - were those news articles paid for with the media credits? Can I ask where you found the brochure? I think I remember seeing this in a waiting room somewhere.
I wonder if they will be looking into this brochure as well?
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/ftbet
An 8K is not a restatement. You keep stating that a restatement was issued 6 weeks after the 10K. It took months for the first restatement and then a second restatement was issued. And a lot of the perceived value disappeared during those restatements.
8K
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010002134/f8k051910_jbi.htm
10K/A 2
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010005258/0001213900-10-005258-index.htm
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65491841
Rawnoc Member Profile Rawnoc Member Level
Share Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:32:30 AM
Re: pseeker post# 122707 Post # of 122880
click here
Nah. You do realize the restatement was about SIX WEEKS after the 10K was filed.
A pretty small window.
There have been two amendments to the 10K for period ending 12/31/2009. The first amendment was not six weeks after the original 10K.
Original 10K for period ending 12/31/2009
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010001230/0001213900-10-001230-index.htm
Filing Date
2010-03-31
Accepted
2010-03-31 17:17:29
Documents
5
Period of Report
2009-12-31
Filing Date Changed
2010-03-31
First Amendment for 10K for period ending 12/31/2009
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010002805/0001213900-10-002805-index.htm
Filing Date
2010-07-09
Accepted
2010-07-09 15:35:08
Documents
5
Period of Report
2009-12-31
Filing Date Changed
2010-07-09
Explanatory Note
This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (the “Amendment”) amends the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JBI, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 31, 2010 (the “Original Filing”). We are filing this Amendment primarily to correct the accounting treatment and related disclosures of two acquisitions which were completed during 2009, and to correct the valuation of media credits acquired by the Company during 2009 through the issuance of common stock.
Restatement
The Company has determined that there were errors in the original accounting for the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It, the valuation of media credits, and equity issuances, causing the Company to restate previously reported financial results as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009. The effect of this misstatement to the financial statements is a decrease in total assets of approximately $11,507,000, an increase in net loss of approximately $2,178,000 and a decrease in equity o $11,809,000.
Second Amendment for 10K for period ending 12/31/2009
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010005258/0001213900-10-005258-index.htm
Filing Date
2010-12-16
Accepted
2010-12-15 17:52:36
Documents
5
Period of Report
2009-12-31
Filing Date Changed
2010-12-15
Explanatory Note
This Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A (the “Amendment”) amends the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JBI, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 31, 2010 (the “Original Filing”). We are filing this Amendment primarily to correct the accounting treatment and related disclosures of two acquisitions which were completed during 2009, and to correct the valuation of media credits acquired by the Company during 2009 through the issuance of common stock. Additionally, we have re-audited our financials for the year ended December 31, 2008 as our former independent registered public accounting firm, Moore & Associates, Chartered, is no longer registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
Restatement
The Company has restated its 2009 consolidated financial statements previously issued on March 31, 2010 for matters related to the following items: (1) the original accounting for the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It which was improperly recorded as a reverse merger, whereby pre-acquisition operations of the acquired entities were erroneously reflected in the operations as originally reported; (2) the valuation and subsequent impairment of media credits; (3) the original acquisition of the assets of John Bordynuik, Inc. was improperly accounted for at fair value; and (4) equity issuances. The accompanying financial statements for 2009 have been restated to reflect the corrections. The effect of this restatement to the financial statements is a decrease in total assets of approximately $11,507,000, an increase in net loss of approximately $2,179,000 and a decrease in equity of $11,809,000.
Especially when several pipes were issued between the time of the original 10K and the restatement and some shares at $4. Huge decrease in value.
Definitely not! And the CEO is the CFO at JBI.
Is this the article you are referring to?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52087438
While the acquisition of the media credits was connected to the acquisition of Javaco, it was the subject of a separate agreement which specified the purchase price of 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. Accordingly, once management determined the value of the media credits was overestimated, the value of the shares given in exchange was charged to operations.
Page 38
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010005258/f10k2009a2_jbi.htm#unresolvedstaffcomments
In May, 2010, the Company consummated a confidential private placement with certain accredited investors for the issuance and sale of up to 1,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share at per share price of $4.00. The net proceeds received by the Company were in the amount of $1,955,116, for the sale of 488,779 shares.
Restatement
The Company has restated its 2009 consolidated financial statements previously issued on March 31, 2010 for matters related to the following items: (1) the original accounting for the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It which was improperly recorded as a reverse merger, whereby pre-acquisition operations of the acquired entities were erroneously reflected in the operations as originally reported; (2) the valuation and subsequent impairment of media credits; (3) the original acquisition of the assets of John Bordynuik, Inc. was improperly accounted for at fair value; and (4) equity issuances. The accompanying financial statements for 2009 have been restated to reflect the corrections. The effect of this restatement to the financial statements is a decrease in total assets of approximately $11,507,000, an increase in net loss of approximately $2,179,000 and a decrease in equity of $11,809,000.
Page 29
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010005258/f10k2009a2_jbi.htm#unresolvedstaffcomments
Here is an interesting article about equity issuances.
http://web.mit.edu/wysockip/www/august2001.pdf
That case is still open. Hearing on 9/19.
http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CivilDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=2010CA005989
The SEC didn't "say" anything. The company filed an 8K saying they received a Wells Notice and what they think the reason is. Have you been privy to a copy of the Wells Notice?
...the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit....
The SEC just admitted right to your face that JBII has done nothing wrong in the last 2 years
Acquisitions and Equity Issuances were non-cash? No money changed hands for the acquisitions? The shares issued were given away?
The SEC just admitted right to your face that JBII has done nothing wrong in the last 2 years other than restatements on financials from 2 years ago based on using a wrong accounting method for noncash items
The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances.
The acquisitions included: Pakit, Javaco, John Bordynuik, Inc. and the Media Credits, 310/TRTN. Did I miss any?
JBI voluntarily restated when the problem became obvious. The company has made it clear that there are no other issues on the table with the Wells notice, so if anything JBI is looking at a minimal fine.
8K from the company:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/f8k071411_jbi.htm
Item 8.01 Other Events
On July 14, 2011, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Enforcement issued a “Wells Notice” to JBI, Inc., ( the “Company”) indicating that the staff intended to recommend that the SEC file a civil lawsuit alleging that the Company violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws . Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances. Based on information obtained from the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the staff may also recommend naming one or more current and former officers of the Company as defendants in the proposed lawsuit.
Under the SEC’s procedures, a Wells Notice indicates that the SEC Enforcement staff has decided to recommend instituting litigation, but the Commission itself has not decided whether or not to approve such a recommendation. The Company has the opportunity to respond to the SEC staff before a decision is made whether to take any adverse action. The Company produced a large quantity of documents, and cooperated with the Enforcement staff, with regard to the investigation preceding the Wells Notice.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the dispute with the SEC, including whether a lawsuit will be filed or the terms of any settlement that may be reached. The Company has been given an opportunity to respond to the Wells Notice, and will decide how to proceed based on consultation with its litigation counsel.
To the best of the Company’s knowledge, the Enforcement staff’s concerns do not currently encompass matters unrelated to the restatement. The Company took a number of proactive steps in connection with the restatement, including hiring additional accounting staff members, retaining a reputable, top-30 accounting firm (WithumSmith+Brown) to provide relevant expertise, and upgrading its accounting software. Previously, on May 21, 2010, the Company disclosed that its financial statements for the indicated time periods should no longer be relied upon.
The Company is deeply concerned about the recent significant trading activity and stock price decrease, which were unaccompanied by any Company disclosures during the 48 hours prior to receiving the Wells Notice. The Company was unaware of the notice until shortly prior to its receipt, and members of management did not trade in the Company’s stock during this period.
The Company does not anticipate that the notice will negatively impact its business operations.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits
None
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized
JBI, INC.
Date: July 20, 2011
By:
/s/ John Bordynuik
John Bordynuik
Chief Executive Officer
7/23 close? Didn't know the markets were open on Saturdays
The Wells Notice is a very current concern. The SEC doesn't issue "scare tactics".
PLEASE, LETS FOUCS ON WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE COMPANY NOW. I agree there have been past mistakes and the ongoing attempt to correct and move forward. What makes me take offense is the attempt of some to bring up old concerns about what was going on in 2009 and forgetting the incredible success made in the past two years to improve the company in regreds to P2O and its benefit to investors, the energy and environmental concerns of our world. I can't wait until this company is able PR the news that will prevent scare tacticts from allowing the company/stock to be under valued and let the world know what a goldmine JBII has to offer.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks. Do you have the most recent updates?
I don't see this statement in the SEC filing. Can you highlight it for us in your reply?
NewMoney Member Profile NewMoney Member Level
Share Friday, July 22, 2011 2:57:26 AM
Re: None Post # of 122344
"The SEC ultimately agreed, and no proceedings were commenced."
LOL. That's a copy/paste right from the supposed to be scary wells notice.
Correction, I believe that is from the SEC filing. Unhappy? Move on.
Item 8.01 Other Events
On July 14, 2011, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Enforcement issued a “Wells Notice” to JBI, Inc., ( the “Company”) indicating that the staff intended to recommend that the SEC file a civil lawsuit alleging that the Company violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws . Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances. Based on information obtained from the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the staff may also recommend naming one or more current and former officers of the Company as defendants in the proposed lawsuit.
Under the SEC’s procedures, a Wells Notice indicates that the SEC Enforcement staff has decided to recommend instituting litigation, but the Commission itself has not decided whether or not to approve such a recommendation. The Company has the opportunity to respond to the SEC staff before a decision is made whether to take any adverse action. The Company produced a large quantity of documents, and cooperated with the Enforcement staff, with regard to the investigation preceding the Wells Notice.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the dispute with the SEC, including whether a lawsuit will be filed or the terms of any settlement that may be reached. The Company has been given an opportunity to respond to the Wells Notice, and will decide how to proceed based on consultation with its litigation counsel.
To the best of the Company’s knowledge, the Enforcement staff’s concerns do not currently encompass matters unrelated to the restatement. The Company took a number of proactive steps in connection with the restatement, including hiring additional accounting staff members, retaining a reputable, top-30 accounting firm (WithumSmith+Brown) to provide relevant expertise, and upgrading its accounting software. Previously, on May 21, 2010, the Company disclosed that its financial statements for the indicated time periods should no longer be relied upon.
The Company is deeply concerned about the recent significant trading activity and stock price decrease, which were unaccompanied by any Company disclosures during the 48 hours prior to receiving the Wells Notice. The Company was unaware of the notice until shortly prior to its receipt, and members of management did not trade in the Company’s stock during this period.
The Company does not anticipate that the notice will negatively impact its business operations.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.