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'm still not sure what it is you claim is misleading, but anyway....
Here is the requested link to the portion of my post that you quoted in limited part (i.e., the consent order):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010005243/f8k121510ex99ii_jbi.htm
This is a more accurate quote from my post:
The quoted language is not misleading, as you seem to suggest. The NY DEC approved commercial production pending issuance of requisite environmental permits. The quoted language does not suggest otherwise, and certainly does not state that the air permit and solid waste permit have been "approved" by the DEC.
Some of the specific solid waste permit application requirements applicable to JBI are set forth in 6 NYCRR 360-3.3 (engineering reports, contingency plans, etc.). Here is a link:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4413.html#14665
These are in addition to the generally applicable solid waste permit requirements. One would be hard-pressed to fit all the required information onto two pages, that's for sure.
You are asking where the company gets cash?
Hey MLM, I think we are largely on the same page (perhaps with the exception of your "P.S."). Absolutely, JBI needs to position itself as a leader, and continue to do so, in order to be successful in the long run. And I agree that it will take more than sensors and the threat of contract disputes to keep the catalyst a secret. I would think, although I do not know, that the company will make efforts to mask the catalyst in the output (assuming it cannot be removed entirely), and would limit disclosure of its composition to a select group of trusted employees.
Will others nonetheless attempt to copy the formula? Of course, assuming, that is, that (1) the company becomes a success and (2) the catalyst is the company's competitive advantage (your skepticism is duly noted and understood). In time, some may be successful in copying the formula, and JBI will thus need to continue to improve its process and market its product in order to capture the market. Ultimately, a company's competitive edge will make all the difference. I agree with all those points.
I do note, however, that patenting the formula would only expedite the replication and subsequent modification of it.
MLM, there are many reasons why JBI, or any other company for that matter, would choose to protect intellectual property as a trade secret, rather than file for patent protection. You are a smart guy. I encourage you to check out a book at your local library on methods of protecting intellectual property rights.
To oversimplify: filing for patent protection would place the composition of the catalyst (or other property) in the public domain. In contrast, trade secrets, by their very nature, are concealed from the public. Indeed, the failure to take reasonable efforts to protect the trade secret from public disclosure deprives the owner of the intellectual property right.
While a recorded patent certainly provides the holder rights, such rights are not self-executing. It is frequently necessary to engage in costly and time-consuming litigation to enforce patent rights. There is an entire law practice devoted to this very issue. If the intellectual property at issue is easily duplicated or (perhaps more importantly) easily concealed, those costs can rise exponentially, particularly in today's global marketplace.
The Mission Impossible anecdote is amusing. But again, it is vital for any company (JBI included) to maintain the "secrecy" of a trade secret in order to protect rights in that asset.
Neither my post, nor the post to which I was responding, nor the posts referenced by the poster to whom I was responding mentioned any events that did or did not occur in 2008. SuperSquirrel specifically asked about the transfer of assets from the tape business to JBII (an event that occurred in 2009). Please stop responding to my posts with unrelated (and unexplained) material. I am obviously not suggesting that some unidentified IPO from some unspecified company did not take place in 2008 when nothing in my post was about anything having to do with events in 2008.
SuperSquirrel:
Notice how that post and the one that preceded it in the thread do not explain where the $4.8 million came from, but rely instead on suggestion, as well as a registration statement for the tape business that was subsequently withdrawn.
Thanks for the explanation jimmenknee, and for the pinpoint reference to the CFO's statements at the AGM concerning the subject of private placements. The statements at issue, to the best I can understand them when listening to the recording, are as follows (uncertainties noted in brackets):
"The financing of the company is dependent upon its operations and its results. Hopefully we won't have any more delays; we generate revenues; [unclear, possibly "we do our Niagara Falls and plastic to oil plan"]; and if those revenues are sufficient under our future growth at the level we wish to have it, hopefully we won't have to do any more private offerings. I can't stand here and tell you that we won't, but we'll try not to."
So in your view the above statement was a lie (or more gently, a "fib," or perhaps even more gently, a prevarication) because he did not mention a private placement that was currently underway. Okay, I understand your position now, and that's appreciated. Personally, I try not to infer any meaning beyond what was actually said. The statement speaks for itself, and if there is no mention of present financing methods, or current financing endeavors, then I do not speculate as to what such financing arrangements may entail.
Anyway, I believe the private placement offering was announced publicly shortly after the AGM. Such private placement shares (as unregistered securities) would not be available for public trading for many months thereafter, so investors had ample advance notice of the private placement before the increased supply of stock hit the open market, and could therefore trade accordingly. I doubt anyone will now complain that they missed the opportunity to invest in the private offering because it was not publicly announced until after the AGM, so that should not be an issue.
Lastly, I think it would be foolish for a company to ever rule out possible sources of FUTURE financing, as such considerations must be made in light of current (not future) conditions. That appears, at least to me, to be the message the CFO was trying to convey. It should go without saying that having sufficient working capital is essential to a company's success, particularly with a start-up.
Paula, we were discussing the AGM, that is, the shareholders' meeting last April, 2010. There were hundreds in attendance, so yes there were many other witnesses. Many people on this board attended the AGM. I think the company may have posted the AGM on its website, so I would check there first for a recording. Someone on this board may have a copy of the recording as well. As for this question:
Fine.
Your question #1:
You were not clear at all, which is why I pressed for clarity. You are being ridiculous. Go back and read our exchange again.
There you go with your vague assertions, thereby obfuscating what in reality is a simple issue. Your clever play on words, though amusing, does not advance the discussion.
Talk about avoiding an answer:
No jimmenknee, that is not the issue. You are the one who keeps insinuating that Mr. Bordynuik, or some other JBI representative, lied. The only problem is that you suggest that to be the case, without articulating the basis for your insinuation. All you need to do is make your point clear on how Mr. Bordynuik lied, which was why I presented you the very direct questions I did.
Just one of your assertions:
Just as I suspected jimmenknee, an evasive answer (assuming it could be called an answer at all). You are the one claiming lies were told. I'm calling BS. I provided you half sentences; all you needed to do is fill in the blanks. How could you possibly be confused?
If you can make a direct assertion by filling in said blanks, there should be nothing to quibble over aside from the accuracy of your assertions.
For your convenience, from my prior post:
All you need to do is succinctly complete the following sentences:
John Bordynuik lied when he said, "__________________."
This assertion was a lie because ________________________.
Alternatively, you may complete the following sentences:
A JBI representative lied during the AGM when he said _________________.
This assertion was a lie because _______________________.
And how exactly does anti-SLAPP legislation have any bearing on JBI? FWIW: anti-SLAPP legislation does not authorize public defamation of a company or its officers, if that is indeed your point????? Although conceivably jurisdictions may differ, anti-SLAPP laws are generally aimed at protecting the right to petition GOVERNMENT.
There is nothing new to report. The last filing was on December 17, unless something was filed very recently that I do not know about. There is a pending motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Bordynuik, and a pending motion to amend filed by Mr. Kaplanis. Aside from procedural rulings, such as granting additional time to file certain documents, the court has yet to rule on any issues in this case. Dispositive motions can take some time to get heard and decided, so do not expect a resolution anytime soon.
LOL....it's not a leading question if it's not your witness...
No worries, MLM. I've been there many times myself. Have a very happy new year!
I really don't think we need to argue semantics on this one, jimmenknee, and the issue is not as complicated as you are making it. We have discussed far more complex issues in the past.
I will save you the trouble and quote myself this time.
Me:
MLM, I do not wish to put words in your mouth. My whole point was that your post was not clear.
Your post:
Yes, that is my recollection. Defining "fib"? The company's future goals RE financing was a fib? I'm not looking to play semantics here, if that is your question. In any event, we are talking about unregistered securities here, so it's not like the public did not have advance warning before (long before) the shares hit the market, assuming that is your concern (you did not make that clear).
How do I resolve what? I'm sure there were many factual details that were not mentioned at the AGM.
I'm having trouble following your post MLM. Who are you saying was making BS statements? Mr. Bordynuik? Some unspecified message board poster? A compilation of public commentary?
It appears that you are claiming that Bordynuik proclaimed at the AGM that there would not be a second or subsequent private placement (i.e., "PP" or "PIPE"). Are you sure about that? The only mention of private placements that I recall at the AGM was someone's (Baldwin, I think) statement that the possibility of future PPs depends on the company's operations and revenue stream. I do recall him saying that if revenues were sufficient, the company would not do a PP, but I also recall him saying that he could not rule out the possibility of a future PP.
Secondly, what are these "BS" Cambridge "photo opps" you speak of? What glamorous photos were ever taken at the Cambridge office? If you are talking about that video you posted, it doesn't appear to have been recorded at the Cambridge office. Am I wrong about that?
If your discontent centers on something some other message board poster stated about this company, then in fairness you should make that fact clear. Otherwise your post has the appearance of chastising JBI for staging a mock photo shoot and then misrepresenting at the AGM that there would be no further private placements. This is particularly true given that the "he" in the quote you are responding to refers to the company's CEO, Mr. Bordynuik. Or are you in fact claiming that Mr. Bordynuik has engaged in such behavior?
Thank you, jimmenknee. Duly noted. If Geoffrey Weber is the managing member of ES Resources, then you are probably correct that ES will no longer be purchasing a P2O license from AS PTO, LLC. I don't think that would affect the area development agreement between JBI and AS PTO for 45 P2O sites, however, given that Al Sousa is still working with JBI toward a Florida P2O roll out, per the recent shareholder conference call.
Are you sure about this part jimmenknee?
It is always a pleasure to read your posts Justice. It has become a part of my morning routine. Thank you for all of your hard work and for sharing your research. I look forward to reading more of your truly substantive posts in the new year. Happy Holidays!
P K G:
Regarding this: