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.
That doesn't make any sense.
Thanks for your reply. You make some very good points. You are likely correct that P2O is not "pyrolysis," as that term is defined under the DEC solid waste regulations. (To be clear, it wasn't my definition of pyrolysis. I took it verbatim from the solid waste regs.) That would render the remainder of my post moot, since the rest of it dealt with the regulation of solid waste pyrolysis facilities (again, as so defined for purposes of Part 360).
I haven't looked into the possibility of RHRF status yet. I have a kid pulling on my shirt sleeve right now, so that will have to wait until later.
Thanks again.
Thanks for sharing. Did either Steve or Ted indicate why the solid waste permit is required in advance of the air permit?
Thanks again.
Random thoughts on solid waste permits.
Given that it has never been clear whether or not the solid waste permit would be required of JBI, I never really bothered looking into this issue. This evening I saw that there has been more discussion of this issue, so I thought I’d poke around on the DEC website to see what I would find. I thought I’d share a few observations.
Obviously, the folks at the DEC or at JBI are a better source of information on what is or is not required of P2O, so this post is merely academic. If you are looking for facts or updates, don’t bother reading further.
I started with the premise that JBI’s feedstock would be considered solid waste, and that P2O would be considered a solid waste management facility, thereby bringing it within the solid waste regulations that I have seen referenced on this board (i.e., Part 360). For those who would like to read about what "solid waste" is under the DEC regs, you can do so here:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8732.html
There have been plenty of posts on BUDs as well, so I won’t go into that either, but you can read more on that topic here if you like:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8821.html
So, as I was reading, the first thing that caught my eye was the term “pyrolysis,” since I have seen that term come up many times during discussions. I’m not a tech expert, so I’ll need some help from some of our tech/engineering experts to see if I am on the right track at all. Here is the definition of “pyrolysis” for purposes of Part 360 (found in section 360-3.2(d)):
Look, your posts are too cryptic for me to even respond to them. I don't work for the SEC so I don't know when or how the SEC was notified about anything. If you would like to bring your posts within the context of the discussion at issue, then please elaborate as to what your point is and how that relates to a proper interpretation of the filings in question.
If your post is unrelated to those filings, then please create a separate thread identifying your concerns.
Thank you. I have read a number of your posts, and I know that you are a reasonable person. You have made some quality, meaningful posts as well. I wish you a lovely holiday with your family.
What does that even mean? Many people could have had many different concerns at many different times. That doesn't mean anything. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, look at what was being discussed.
Not discussing dates. We were discussing filings in the Kaplanis lawsuit. The quotes were taken from email correspondence dated late January 2010.
Yes, I am well aware of that, but it has nothing to do with my post or the filings in question. I expressed my displeasure with that event when it happened.
I think you went beyond “reading into” what I was saying, but that is not a point worth discussing.
Here is a tip for you though. Rather than reading and quoting from another message board poster’s selective (and reorganized) presentation of the filings, try going straight to the underlying documents. Context is quite valuable when interpreting the intended meaning of specific statements.
Let’s consider some of the examples raised by people as demonstrative of corporate improprieties. How about these posts?
Wow! You have had some reasonable posts in the past, but this isn't one of them. That is your attempt to paraphrase something I said?! Are you responding to the right post?! Have you really stooped to the level of twisting and manipulating my words to such a great extent?! I did not "purport" any of the statements you claim. Go back and read my posts.
I said that executives must be focused on maximizing shareholder value, which in turn implicates the market value of the shares. The stability and value of the stock in turn affects the company's ability to obtain financing. For further context, look back to the Kaplanis lawsuit, which is what raised this whole "stock promotion" buzz in the first place. Once you are there, read my comments as they relate to that lawsuit. After that, read my comments to jimmenknee where I expressed gratitude and a desire to speak in a cordial manner.
You seem to be suggesting (and now I am paraphrasing) that I support stock market manipulation, so long as the ends justify the means. That is absurd. As you should know, to arrive at that determination you must first attribute a host of statements to me which I never made.
Let's keep things honest around here.
I'm done for tonight.
Absolutely. A proper understanding should always be the goal, although refuting is often necessary to arrive at an understanding. And I agree that we should always call it as we see it and make our own individual determinations accordingly.
Moving this discussion forward in an understanding light is an admirable objective, and I am all in favor of cordial discussions.
Cheers!
I'm happy to read more on the subject, but I would like to know what I am looking for. What do you suggest was the violation?
Thanks jimmenknee. I can see how you could interpret those statement as such. All executives must be focused on maximizing shareholder value though, which of course implicates market value of the shares (not to mention financing opportunities). If the goal was to dump shares on the open market, that would be one thing. If the goal is sustainable growth in the share price, that is something different.
But aren't those two different beasts, so to speak? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought "stock promotion" for purposes of SEC violations generally consisted of promoting a stock to the public in order to sell shares on the open market at an inflated price. How does offering stock to an employee as part compensation for services rendered fit within the "stock promotion" characterization?
That is an interesting question. In Kaplanis's complaint (paragraph 13), he alleged:
"13. The Agreement provided MICHAEL KAPLANIS with a base salary of $120,000 and initial "Incentive Stock Options" of 100,000 shares, which MICHAEL KAPLANIS received as stock upon signing the Agreement." (emphasis added)
Yet, in his opposition filed today, he (or his counsel) states (on page 8):
"[B]ecause the Plaintiff did not receive the promised [100K shares of] stock from Mr. Bordynuik, Mr. Bordynuik's representations regarding the same constitute fraud or another tortious act . . . ."
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. Anyone else notice this?
Stock promotion? Mr. Kaplanis's affidavit makes no mention of stock promotion. That phrase appears to be Kaplanis's counsel's characterization of Mr. Bordynuik's offer to compensate Kaplanis, in part, by giving Kaplanis 100K shares of his JBI stock.
And yes, thank you to scion for posting these documents for us to read.
What is the SEC violation, or potential SEC violation?
You were asked a number of questions this morning, based on your postings, that you have completely disregarded. I would be very interested in your response.
How about these questions:
Three posted by Steady T.
Thank you for your kind words. Statements lose their intended meaning when they are taken out of context. We all need to be mindful of that.
I see there have been a lot of posts over the weekend. Did I miss anything truly noteworthy? Thanks again.
It is the same link and language posted by scion (same thread), just with different language highlighted.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010002805/f10ka2009_jbi.htm
That lawsuit was dismissed on the defendants' motion, no? Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe those RICO (racketeering) claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state an entitlement to relief, with no appeal taken by the plaintiff.
Mark Peikin
1:09-cv-22964-JLK Dolphin Digital Media, Inc. et al v. Peikin et al
James Lawrence King, presiding
Date filed: 10/01/2009
Date terminated: 04/23/2010
Date of last filing: 04/23/2010
Case SummaryOffice: Miami Filed: 10/01/2009
Jury Demand: Plaintiff Demand: $1500000
Nature of Suit: 370 Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition: Dismissed - Other
County: Miami-Dade Terminated: 04/23/2010
I just searched air permit applications for Covanta Niagara in Niagara Falls during the last two years and got this message:
"No applications found matching the search criteria."
What am I supposed to find?
I certainly don't debate the validity of your links, and I do not know of any reason why JBI would be excluded from the DART database. I do wonder how well it is kept up to date though. I took the liberty of narrowing the list you posted to applications submitted to the Division of Air Resources (i.e., air permits).
Gift taxes?!
The US gift tax (when required) ordinarily is collected from the person making the gift, not the one receiving it. From IRS Publication 950:
Hi BigGreen. The project doesn't need to sit idle pending DEC permitting. The permit application should be based on known and prospective emissions. An expansion of operations will not necessarily trigger a new application to the DEC. Of course, different obligations apply depending on the scope of the expansion, so I obviously can't comment on what requirements will necessarily be required of JBI in light of whatever expansions the company has in mind for the NY facility. I can, however, leave you with this (be sure to note the "operational flexibility" under part (b)):
Regulation FD and the Form 8-K filed in accordance therewith. I see that there has been a lot of chatter about these two requirements. At the end of this post is a link to the text of Regulation FD, as it currently appears on the SEC's website, for you to read at your leisure.
In general terms, Regulation FD requires the corporation (more precisely, the "issuer" as defined in the regs) to make public disclosure of "material nonpublic information" in the event that it discloses such information to specified persons (most notably, a "holder of the company's securities, under circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the person will purchase or sell the issuer's securities on the basis of the information").
The question you raised is a good one: When is information deemed "material" under this rule? Given that a violation of Regulation FD turns, at least in part, on the meaning of the term "material," it is a fundamental consideration. You will see that Regulation FD itself does not define the term "material."
The most common definition of "material" I have seen states that a fact is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision, or, stated in different terms, the fact "would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available." This oft-quoted language is taken from a 1976 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (on page 449):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8985475040212340102&q=426+U.S.+438&hl=en&as_sdt=40000002
Even with this definition, there is no definitive guidance as to what information necessary implicates Reg FD; rather, the materiality requirement must be determined in light of the underlying facts and circumstances. The SEC has, however, provided at least some guidance as to what type of information might be considered material, depending on the circumstances. Note that this list is non-exhaustive (found under section II.B.2):
Yes, thank you, that clears it up. The 8-K did not characterize the $150,000 (paid as part of the compensation for Javaco) as "cash." Personally, I think the dollar sign indicates that money, rather than $150,000 worth of some other asset, is at issue.
No, I listed the 8-K, 10-K, and 10-K/A, plus links. Here is what I posted: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56027805
Where did it go "poof"?
The 8-K:
Sorry, I guess I'm not sure what it is you think is missing. You wrote, "No mention of $150,000 in cash in the 8-K," and then quoted a portion of the 8-K that did not include $150,000. I quoted a different portion of that same 8-K that specifically mentioned the $150,000. It looks like you are now quoting to it as well. Is it the characterization of the $150,000 as "cash" that you take issue with?