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 wonder what ever happened to OXY...no re-sales...no service agreement...hmmm
12 - 29 - 11 : John Bordynuik recaps Amazing 2011 Progress, DD
As 2011 comes to a close, John Bordynuik, Founder and CEO of JBI, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQX:JBII), offers a recap of the Company's progress and key milestones over the past 12 months.
"It's been an exciting year for the Company," states Bordynuik. "We've taken significant steps forward and on many levels have out-paced traditional industry timelines -- and it has been a team effort." He continues, "The successes we've seen in 2011 have involved many months of extensive testing, third party analysis and validation, and corporate due diligence. We are proud of our accomplishments and are confident about our growth moving into the next fiscal year."
In May 2011, JBI, Inc. announced its first sale of fuel produced by the Company's patent-pending Plastic2Oil(R) ("P2O") process. Shortly thereafter, Coco Asphalt Engineering, a division of Coco Paving, Inc., entered into a Supply and Service Agreement for the Company's ultra-clean, ultra-low sulphur fuel.
I said "margins" not profits. Buying fuel to blend is a cost isn't it? Maybe they will lump that in a different column you know the one with the MRF lease.
Negative, he said purchase "fuel" to blend not additives.I wonder what the ratio is 99 parts purchased fuel and 1 part P2O....who knows? That's going to kill the margins.
Why the need to buy fuel, something doesn't add up?
LOL, P2O profit is completely unaffected by selling additional non-P2O fuel.
The same guy who ran it into the ground the first time is back in action...repeat performance?
Wow, bringing up something from 4 years ago....4 years? Pray tell what that might mean as I do not understand the relevance to today's activities.
Negative, he said purchase "fuel" to blend not additives.I wonder what the ratio is 99 parts purchased fuel and 1 part P2O....who knows? That's going to kill the margins.
Why the need to buy fuel, something doesn't add up?
Just keeping it real.
The XTR Energy agreement will require the Company to purchase third party fuels to blend with its P2O fuel output until it can build out the capacity to meet the full quantities required by the customer.
"Nah. Road fuel requires additives....hence the blending....JBI will make a fortune off road fuel.....just fortunein'"
Not only that, he was required to have the assets appraised by a independent third party as outlined in ASC 805-10-55-16. This didn't occur till after the one year measurement period, a clear violation of section 805.
"It was incompetency on the part of the accountant and CFO at the time and an oversight by management caught up in everything happening with P2O at the time."
John Bordynuik was JBI's CFO at the time of the acquisition of the media credits. He signed the 10Q in which they were first recorded as President, CEO and CFO.
He also signed the letter agreement in which the company issued 1,000,000 shares, which closed on the day of the agreement at a pps of exactly $1.00, for $9,997,134 worth of media credits.
That's some oversight.
Welcome aboard Stoxrock.
Great to have your first hand knowledge of Wells Notices/SEC suspensions around.
Sounds like he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar and with crumbs on his face!
FROM THE JULY PR FROM JBII:
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.
notice equity issuances? Usually the SEC will cite backdating or fraudulent documents to illegally remove restrictive legends
this is Section 5 and specifically 5a and 5c of the 33 Act
this means he most definitely violated 17a of the 33act (fraud in the issuance of stock)
Notice one or more current and former officers?
he may have co-conspired with owners of the shell to illegally transfer free trading shares from existing free trading shell stock owners.
This is going to be a 17a, Section 5 and Rule 10b-5 case
JB has been a bad boy...
anticipate an officer and director bar and a penny stock bar on JB.
see, Section 5 has no defense, scienter (knowledge) is not an element of a Section 5 case
All the SEC has to do is show prima facie evidence that Section 5 was violated and:
BURDEN LIES WITH THE DEFENDANT...
so, either u sold restricted stock or not, that's it
reckless disregard is no defense
smells like JB co-conspired with the shell owners and has since illegally removed restrictive legends from certs...
HE IS TOAST...
Anslow and Jaclin, his attorneys are very good
they have prepared him for the worst
he knows hes done already
he is going 4 broke here folks.....
he has nothing to lose anymore
he he has already lost...
July Wells, case could be filed any day now....
The SEC names John Bordynuik,and former officers as Defendants - anyone expecting this type of news in the Quarterly report today?
On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (“SEC”) Division of Enforcement issued a "WELLS Notice" to 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.
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.
Filing Date 2011-08-22
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011004691/f10q0611_jbi.htm
On 2011-09-25, at 6:53 PM
The blending site has not purchased,sold, or blended any fuel to date. It will be blending and selling fuels after we get a few more processors operating.
Regards,
John Bordynuik
CEO
JBI
It's entirely possible that something did come up, maybe JBI's latest and greatest pre melt is a complete bust like the auger, then the ram feeder.
There continues to be no logical reason not to 8K the Addendum once signed. Any address or information JBI didn't want released -could easily be redacted.
Since the elusive Addendum is written as the Green Light to the agreement, I feel it's a material event that needs to be 8K'D once executed.
Disclaimer in case something came up and we all know it.
"Within (90)days of the date of this agreement, or such other time as the parties may agree in writing."
Interesting how you leave out the part "or such other time as the parties may agree in writing"
It's possible that no Addendum has been executed - due to the lack of any 8K disclosing such, and in it's place a extension to hire a engineer registered in the state - is the only document that's been executed since the signing of the Master Agreement.
You mean the Addendums signed and in a locked drawer?
Hence the master agreement called for an engineer registered in "state state" of the first site and he/she was to be hired within 90 days (last month).
Negative, the Master Agreement and JBI have a Red Light with a unsigned Addendum, they will not have a Green Light until they get the Addendum executed.
Without a Green Light/Addendum they have nothing....period
"Actually the master agreement is what counts.."
While it's possible that one or more Addendums have been executed, it's also entirely possible that one hasn’t been executed yet.
The following quotes you made - are based on only pure speculation, and were made without a shred of evidence to lend support to any of them.
"Which explains why the site agreement(s) can be found in file cabinets at JBI and RKT."
"You must be referring to that addendum that is signed and in the file drawer?"
"That must be the most heavily guarded file drawer in the country. Oh wait....maybe not......It just holds a routine piece of paper."
"There is no question that the addendum you keep looking for is in a file drawer with all the signatures on it."
"The addendum is safe and signed in that file drawer."
"There are two file cabinets with signed addendum(s) in them. One at JBI and one at RKT."
"Which explains why the site agreement(s) can be found in file cabinets at JBI and RKT."
Nah, I prefer to use the language that the DEC recorded when they granted JBI the Air Permit. That very language was documented as fact, and the Permit was also contingent upon conditons that have yet to be met, or announced as met by JBI.
The air permit was released after the DEC reviewed the results of two tests done at 1,000 lbs per hour using virgin only plastic feedstock, these Air tests that the DEC reviewed were completed in August 2010.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
Actually, your assumption is complete fiction and proven wrong by the Air Permit itself. I attached the link of the Air Permit for your review.
The stack test was never tested at 2,000 lbs per hour for the Air Permit prior to receiving said Air Permit. Which is why the DEC imposed a deadline for JBI to complete a new test with a firm deadline of Dec 11th just weeks away.
The air permit was released after the DEC reviewed the results of two tests done at 1,000 lbs per hour using virgin only plastic feedstock, these Air tests that the DEC reviewed were completed in August 2010.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
Actually according to the DEC the limit was put on place because that's the rate it was tested at with the stack test. No other reason.
Dec 11th 2011, just a few weeks after they report. If JBI doesn't report (in the next quarterly) that they accomplished and passed the mandatory DEC test, then one needs to ask WHY?
JBI has been spouting forever that the processor can handle a ton per hour or 20 tons per day. However,the clock is ticking on JBI's 180 day allowance to show the DEC the processor can handle 2,000lbs per hour - safely.
I wonder what the new excuses will sound like, if JBI needs to ask for a extension to perform, or worse yet fails?
Maybe, JBI will announce that they're really super excited about their new invention, the new and improved "combination super shredder melter" that's nearing completion and entering the patent process.
When is too many exuses - too many?
Tick Tock.
Nah, the DEC is still waiting for the test results at the Maximum allowed limits of 2,000 lbs per hour. This testing needs to be completed within 60 days after maximum hourly production is achieved, but not later than 180 days after the date of the permit.
Page 11, section/item 7.2 of the Air permit - in case you missed it.
Follow this link:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
The DEC has never tested/watched or witnessed the 20 ton processor running at 1 ton per hour, as you suggest - as this would have triggered the DEC's own 60 day testing requirement.
That 60 day requirement, has long passed since June 14th 2011, and the company's silence on this subject is deafening and certainly suspect.
The air permit was released after the DEC reviewed the results of two tests done at 1,000lbs per hour using virgin only plastic feedstock, these Air tests that the DEC reviewed were completed in August 2010.
Hmmm...I wonder why JBI didn't refresh that test at 2,000lbs per hour prior to June 11 to satisfy the DEC, and instead opted for a 6 month extension to try a run at 2,000lbs per hour.
Many many many others, including the NYSDEC, can verify watching how quickly an easily a ton of feedstock gets processed into fuel within an hour. I think the NYSDEC is the most credible people on the planet. Give them a call.
Cash flow or PIPE flow?
"In each of the periods the Company had significant charges included in the reported Net Loss that had no effect on cash flows."
Your only guessing that the Addendum is signed and locked up in a file drawer, if they truly had the Addendum why would they hide it?
If the RKT location was something JBI wanted to protect,they could easily 8K the Addendum with the address redacted out.
There is no question that the addendum you keep looking for is in a file drawer with all the signatures on it.
You will find out about the locations and other details when the first RKT JBI P2O systems go into operation and are announced.
Till then the location is a company secret.
Darn that raggertail.
They will not release the Contract contingent Addendum because:
A.) They don't have one.
B.) They don't want the fact that it's at a mill that produces only pulp and paperboard raggertail released.
C.) They lost the key to the file cabinet....Hmmm
JBI couldn't have processed any raggertail, since the premelt wasn't complete at the time JBI was testing the LDPE. So one can only wonder if the premelt for the raggertail will ever work at all, or how long JBI will have to spend tweaking?
Rawnoc Share Friday, October 28, 2011 12:07:31 PM
Re: techisbest post# 140074 Post # of 140198
Since NYSE: RKT did months of comprehensive DD, I'm going to add that there's no "if" they can process NYSE: RKT's waste successfully -- it's already a historical fact.
Apparently bales of LDPE plastic were already sent to Niagara and tested. And as you and everybody's who's been there already knows, it's laughable to suggest it was raggertail since it wouldn't have even fit through the whole of the reactor under the original feeder at the time of the testing. :)
Let's not forget the cost of excavating the monofills and then the cost of transporting the plastic's from them.
What about this whole revenue sharing concept - where JBI does all the work, takes all the risk and pays for the complete buildout,pads,tanks,processors,buildings,loading docks,etc - and then gives away the revenues(free plastic my arse) in exchange for the right to take the very plastic that RKT was burying, and the raggertail it paid to get rid of.
Honest John really needs to work on his negotiating skills, because he sucks at it.
Nowhere in the video that you posted, does it mention anything about a catalyst.
In fact this is what it says:
"One Kilogram 2.2 pounds of plastic yields one liter of fuel, and was expected to take 4 hours to process - the actual time it takes in the prototype machine is 15 minutes."
No mention of the super catalyst at all as the reason, where did you get catalyst from?
Do you have a complete video or some link, that mentions JBI's catalyst as the reason for the increase in the throughput by a factor of 16 as you claimed?
Do the math. 15 Minutes vs 4 Hours
Nothing in that video speaks to your two previous quotes, do you have the link/proof to the statements you made below?
I'm really curious how you came up with the Catalyst increases throughput by a factor of 16. By a factor of 16 compared to what?
"JBII's Catalyst which increases throughput by a factor of 16 is unique"
"Having these processors being built at a cost of about $500K is also unique"
I have a quote directly form JBI's 10K(see link below)that speaks directly to the cost which is substantially larger than your quote of about 500K. At the time of the 10K the cost per processor when it had the ficticious 1000sq' footprint was 400K-900K.
Now the processor footprint is being disclosed as 2,000sq' and they've since addded a premelt.
"We have designed our P2O processors to take up approximately 1,000 square feet of space (for processors with up to a 20 MT capacity), giving the processors a small footprint. This facilitates the construction of multiple processor sites. We estimate that the costs of constructing our initial P2O processors on industrial partner sites will be in the range of $400,000 to $900,000, which we believe to be substantially less than the cost of constructing waste-to-fuel facilities offered by our competitors."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011002119/f10k2010_jbi.htm
I haven't seen any reports on the Catalyst, please provide the Link to these claims.
JBII's Catalyst which increases throughput by a factor of 16 is unique
Having these processors being built at a cost of about $500K is also unique
Straight from the company's own mouth.
I wonder if the mythical and elusive Data Recovery Patent that once showed up in previous 10Q's, and is mysteriously absent from the lastest 10Q was any more brilliant than the Data Recovery Method described below?
There must be a reason why the Data Recovery Patent was once included in the 10Q, and is now mysteriously absent and missing from the latest 10Q?
Hmmm, I wonder why - SEC?
Step one: locate trash can:
Step two: Remove crumpled paper.
Step three: Unfold paper and recover data.
Can I have link to the comprehensive proof that the company has provided, other than he said so?
"provided COMPREHENSIVE proof that the process is viable"
I would like nothing better than to sing that song again, and see the worlds plastic problems melt into fuel. Heck, I'd be happy to lead the choir. But, do you really think John will give everyone a reason to sing this Christmass?
It's been almost a year since full commercial production was supposed to commence....tired of the BS
Maybe, I'll have to get busy writing a new carol.
Art, are we right to assume you won't be singing the same song this holiday season as the last?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm dreaming of a Green Christmas
Just like the chart of last year shows
Where the Diesel barrels glisten,
and Stock Analyst listen
To hear the world sing P2O
Happy Holidays!
I think you meant PIPE flow.
Why should there be any effect on PIPE flow, just sell more PIPES...Hmm no effect here
"In each of the periods the Company had significant charges included in the reported Net Loss that had no effect on cash flows."
Yeah, I'd agree whole heartedly that they have Administrative challenges. What they must need is an additional $4,330,071 in Administative fee's placed on the backs of shareholders to get processor number 1 and 2 running.
Can you even believe they blew through $4,330,071 in selling general and Administrative Fee's in the second quarter alone?
I'd say they're challenged, but I'm thinking mentally
"CEO knows very well that all that's left between today and commercial success are "administrative and operational" challenges."
If you want to believe it should take a year to roll out number two, then be my guest
IMHO all you need is one that works first, and then copy. How long should it take to copy a processor, this should be measured in days and weeks not months or years.
So one needs to ask themselves, does he even have one that works and what the hell is the problem?
Perhaps you can cite a P2O company that is rolling out processors faster? Cynar, Agilyx, Envion, Donghe, Blest, Vadxx, Pintér-Tokarz? Are these also "glacial"?
What would you consider to be an acceptable rate of rollout?
TIA
Ok, so far the roll out is moving at a glacial speed, I don't think you could even consider it being dripped out at this point.
It's been almost a year since the DEC gave permission to build additional processors.....drip drip.
Let's discuss what the next new delay will be, before Niagara Falls has three processors running full tilt at the limits DEC allowed.
How much time does it really take to have his plug and play processors plugged in?
Again old news. Let's discuss new topics that haven't been beaten to death. Such as.........How fast will the rollout occur?
Perhaps instead of patting himself on the back about being on the Ontario legislature and being brilliant enough to notice the shift from glass to plastic, he could of addressed more important issues.
It appears that no one wants to talk about why he didn't talk about his amazing Catalyst - among other topics?
One of the biggest flaws in his whole story resolves around his amazing Catalyst. He could have easily in the past run tests with and without the Catalyst, and released the results to show the efficiencies of using said Catalyst without revealing the ingredients of his secret sauce.
You know, back up his claims with some real Science.
One needs to ask why he never has....Hmmm?
My mistake, 17 1/2 minutes out of 20 available
I listened word for word, not much new at all - enlighten me.
With so many great improvements, and investors clamoring for new news, why did he only use 14 out of his 20 allowed minutes?
The great Stock Salesman, AKA honest John and sometimes refered to as Johnny Boy Genius. Had the floor for tweenty minutes and only used 14...add bad time management to the rest of his piss poor management skills.
He could have easily PR'd some new news annoucing new customers if they were material prior to the conference, and the completion of processors 1,2 and 3 Premelt,etc yet he decided against it. Name one good reason why?
He could have talked about how his amazing Processor ran without the catalyst and then also with the catalyst to show how efficient the secret sauce was - but he didn't and he never has....things that make you go Hmmmm.
I know right, talk about getting SERVED!
On another note, John sure had bad time mangemment today. He only used 14 out of an available 20 minutes allowed. I guess he didn't want to talk about his great Catalyst or Pre-Melt among other things.
Another Red Flag joins the many others fluttering around JBI Inc.[JBII] -- Notice to Cease and Desist Internet Defamation
For those of you who may have missed it. First a letter from JBI legal, followed by a great response.
Re: Notice to Cease and Desist Internet Defamation
Dear Mr. Feierabend:
I have been retained by JBI Inc., a Nevada Corporation, to request that you cease and desist making defamatory attacks against the Company, its officers and directors, on various web site message boards, including, but not limited to, Investor Hub.com, and, in the alternative, to take legal action against you if you continue making such public defamatory statements.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, you are the person posting false and defamatory attacks on Investor Hub.com message boards using the name “paper prophet”.
It is hereby requested that you:
1. Immediately CEASEAND DESIST from making defamatory comments against my client on any and all web sites and message boards; ,
2. Immediately delete or remove from Investor Hub.com and any other web sites and message boards all defamatory and disparaging remarks made by you against my client; and
3. Issue a notarized letter of apology in writing to my client for the damages that your actions have brought upon it.
If you refuse to, or do not, comply with this request within 15 days of receipt of this letter, JBI Inc., its officers and directors, will have no choice but to pursue all of their legal remedies against you, including the possibility of filing actions for damages and injunctive relief.
You are further advised that your actions have resulted in damages to my client in Canada, for which you may be subject to additional legal action in that country for your defamatory conduct and activities.
YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THIS LETTER ONLINE OR IN ANY OTHER FORM OF MEDIA.
Very truly yours,
David L. Rost
January 3, 2011
[....]
THE REPLY
Dear Mr. Rost:
I acknowledge receipt of the cease and desist letter you wrote on behalf of your client, dated December 28"‘, 2010. I also acknowledge that you did not give me permission to publish the letter on the intemet. However I'm unsure on what grounds you are so deluded to believe you have the authority to restrict my publishing the letter on the internet. Copyright law? I'm completely baffled. Unless you disingenuously wrote that I don't have permission, hoping I would believe you had the authority. If it's the latter then certainly it should be no mystery to you why lawyers are often stereotyped as “sleazy.” Against your request, I am publishing it on the internet as I believe it's of interest to your client's shareholders.
You stated your client was JBI, inc.. As JBI Inc. was only a shell in which Mr. John Bordynuik purchased a controlling interest and in which he now controls every aspect, including how often and how he pays himself and others and what information is publicized, I don't have any issues with the company itself. I rarely mention JBI Inc. in my messages but I do often refer to Mr. John Bordynuik as its controlling shareholder. For the remainder of this letter I am assuming your client is really Mr. John Bordynuik. In reality it makes little difference other than Whether Mr. Bordynuik wants to pay you directly from company funds or ?rst extract invested company funds and pay you himself.
In regard to your three requests
1) Immediately cease and desist from making defamatory comments against my client on any and all web sites and message boards.
- Your first request is not applicable as to the best of my knowledge l have not made any defamatory comments against your client. I wlll remind you that for a comment to be defamatory, it must be false. Posting true comments does not make those posts defamatory, even if your client complains and protests. If I have mistakenly posted anything at all which was genuinely untrue, please notify me of my mistake with the reason it was false and I will gladly remedy it and avoid posting it in the future.
2) Immediately delete or remove from Investor Hub.c0m and any other web sites and message boards all defamatory and disparaging remarks made by you against my client; and
- Again in deference to your client, if you or your client can point me to any messages I may have posted that are truly false and dafamatory with an explanation why I was mistaken, I will certainly do everything reasonable in my power to have those posts removed. I make every reasonable attempt to be accurate.
- Regarding your use of the word “disparaging,” this is a different topic. As I am outlining later in this letter, your client, Mr. John Bordynuik, is a penny stock operator who purchased controlling interest in a shell company and is abusing the capital markets by duping naive investors with his story of producing a crude-oil equivalent or even diesel for under $10 per barrel. Your client disgusts me and it is well within my right to post my opinion regarding your client on a stock message board where the purpose is to discuss the merits of an investment in the company.
3) Issue a notarized letter of apology in writing to my client for the damages have brought upon it.
- Not applicable. Your client has suffered no damages due to me, neither veri?able nor per se. Posting the truth about your client might have even caused a few shareholders to re-think their position in JBl Inc., but my posts weren't false to the best of my knowledge nor are any of my posts misleading. I strive to be accurate and genuine. I stand by my statements. There will be no notarized letter of apology to your client.
I'm also going to assist you in compiling your case against me...not because I have to but because I think it's appropriate that you understand my position. You may also compile my messages on the message boards if you wish but this will give you an overview.
I will give you a background on your client as l understand to be Mr. John Bordynuik, not JBI lnc.. Your client purchased controlling interest in a shell company with few to no operations in early 2009. Your client had a story that he stumbled upon a recipe for a catalyst which would transform the simple process of pyrolysis into a process which could make oil — and even diesel — from plastic for less than ten dollars a barrel which then could be sold for three dollars under the price of crude oil — a quality which, if true, would allow his pyrolysis oil to surpass the value of regular pyrolysis oils by orders of magnitude. He claimed he could get paid to take plastic for free to feed his process as well.
This claim would be considered ridiculous to most of the informed and experienced investing public. To make a hydrocarbon-only fuel similar to diesel, hydrocarbon-only plastics would have to be used, plastics which carry a market price of several hundred dollars per ton in non-trivial quantities thereby eliminating any chance of being able to produce such a fuel for less than ten dollars per barrel. If mixed plastic was used, still carrying a price tag which would likely refute the ten dollars per barrel claim, the resulting pryrolysis oil would contain signi?cant elemental oxygen rendering it a much less valuable oil than crude oil—unless your client also decides to claim that his secret catalyst can also resolve that issue.
However, Mr. Bordynuik's claims of producing for less than ten dollars per barrel and being able to sell as diesel or as a crude oil-equivalent don't seem ludicrous to the naive penny stock investors targeted by Mr. Bordynuik. Those investors reason that since plastic is made from oil then the reverse must be attainable and they believe that Mr. Bordynuik has discovered the secret»even though Mr. Bordynuik has provided no reasonable basis in fact to support his ridiculous claims nor any reasonable basis in fact that he can produce an oil for under ten dollars per barrel which could be sold for any price, let alone the price of crude oil which is currently over ninety dollars per barrel.
While I admit that your client has shied away from making the outlandish cost and price claims for over half a year, he also has never retracted those claims and the message boards devoted to his stock make it clear that his faithful investors still believe that he can make a crude oil equivalent or even diesel for less than ten dollars per barrel.
The following are very direct reasons why Ihave called Mr. Bordynuik a liar on more than one occasion.
- In April of 2010, Mr. Bordynuik told investors that he had an offer to purchase his oil from Somerset Re?nery in Kentucky. Somerset Re?nery had been defunct for two months prior to Mr. Bordynuik's statement. It would be naive to believe there ever was an offer and if there were, Mr. Bordynuik made no disclosure that the offer was no longer valid – material information for those shareholders who believed him.
- Mr Bordynuik released a press release saying that he was filing for patent protection in wording that made it clear that filing was underway. In SEC ?lings a year later, it was disclosed no patent protection was ever sought.
- Mr. Bordynuik gave input or allowed media credits to be put in the balance sheet at a value of $10 million. Again it would be naive to believe that Mr. Bordynuik had any basis for his valuation of those media credits. He isn't so naive a man to believe he can get $10 million of assets for virtually nothing.
- In July of this year Mr. Bordynuik stated that commercial production of his oil would begin immediately after an air permit was received from the state of New York. On receipt of the air permit, Mr. Bordynuik release or caused to be released a press release saying that JBI “commences commercial operations.” This was clearly designed to play on the expectations he had communicated to shareholders and, indeed, the price rallied from the mid $0.5O's to over $1.30. Since then it's become clear that any real commerce simply has not occurred.
- Mr. Bordynuik stated that he expected production to begin in the ?rst quarter of 2010, the second quarter of 2010, the third quarter of 2010 and then the fourth quarter of 2010. It's clear that Mr. Bordynuik was lacking any reasonable or factual basis whatsoever for stating those timelines. The odds of so many of Mr. Bordynuik's expectations falling ?at would be a statistical impossibility. Often the information he gives to shareholders appears to lack any reasonable basis in fact whatsoever.
- Mr. Bordynuik announced in June of 2009 that he was beginning operations with a “volume processor” and referred to P20 as a “profit center.” His aim was clearly to give the impression that commerce was at hand. While puf?ng seems to be extensively used, that and other press releases appear to have had signi?cant 'wordsmithing' to communicate information which was materially different from reality.
I have other examples including these where Mr. Bordynuik either lied, lied by omission, used scienter, misled investors or made statements with reckless disregard for the truth.
Please note, again, that it wasn't me who defamed Mr. Bordynuik by calling him a liar. I labeled him based on the definition of a liar—Mr. Bordynuik has on various occasions directly communicated information to shareholders which didn't appear to have any reasonable basis in fact or which were outright lies. By definition that makes him a liar.
In addition I will remind you that there are three criteria for fraud.
I) A person has made false or misleading statements either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth
2) Others relied on those false or misleading statements and
3) those other suffered damages because of their reliance.
Unless Mr. Bordynuik has some reasonable excuse why he believed he had a reasonable basis for making many of the incorrect or false statements that he made, it's clear that Mr. Bordynuik left the realm of puffing with meaningless adjectives (e.g. “high quality”) and suggestion and has crossed well over the line into fraud. You can see in just the examples which I listed to where fraud may have occurred. I have often stated my opinion on message boards that I believe Mr. Bordynuik is a typical penny stock swindler. There is currently no shortage of swindlers running penny stock schemes where the operators solicit investment monies from naive investors. They all seem to operate the same way by misleading shareholders and getting them to believe something materially different from factual reality in order to get them to buy shares and, similarly, never o?‘er much, if any, basis to back up their often ridiculous claims of revolutionary technologies.
I've worked with startup companies and entrepreneurs in the past. Universally from what I've seen those who are honest tend to expend significant effort in trying to provide a proof-of-concept to prove their claims are valid. Those who make no effort or who in fact actually avoid any such effort to provide evidence of value typically aren't in the business of honest commerce. Mr. Bordynuik falls into that category of never attempting to provide any evidence that his cost and price claims are true. I would ?nd it difficult to believe that Mr. Bordynuik is merely too naive or bungling to properly run a startup business which, based on his claims, would have nearly 90% gross margins.
However I cannot do much other than sit by and watch unwitting investors lose their money. Twice I have reported Mr. Bordynuik to the Securities Exchange Commission for his scienter but it's clear to me from my previous communications with the SEC regarding other companies that the SEC's resources are stretched thin.
As I have never had any financiall interest in JBI, Inc., I also did not suffer any damages so I cannot take him to court to prevent him from running his scheme based on personal damages. I very much believe Mr. Bordynuik is a criminal but I simply have no ability to stop him by due process.
However in a defamation suit, I would certainly be able to bring evidence in front of a court to back up what I am saying. I would consider it a public service to use my time to either assist in bringing a fraud suit against Mr. Bordynuik or to at least make it easier for his investors to sue him in the future by making the discovery process much easier. I would guess that Mr. Bordynuik would argue that any reasonable man would have readily have come to the conclusion that his process really could produce an oil for less than ten dollars per barrel which re?neries would be happy to purchase for near the price of crude oil. I would guess that he gets constant affirmation and believes that he's clever enough to convince a court that he was reasonable in his claims as well. However l have enough faith in our justice system to where I am certain Mr. Bordynuik wouldn't be lucky enough to ?nd a judge so gullible to believe that Mr. Bordynuik really can produce or had any reasonable basis for believing that he can produce a crude oil-equivalent or diesel for under ten dollars a barrel. And as you know, judges can initiate a new suit for probable malfeasance that comes to their attention during a trial.
I'm certain you will get paid well— Mr. Bordynuik was able to solicit several million dollars from naive investors who invested in his company through the private investments Mr. Bordynuik orchestrated earlier this year and as controlling shareholder, Mr. Bordynuik has full control and access to JBI's accounts. I am also certain I will get reimbursed for any expenses I may incur during this case. With a little luck, this will also result in a felony charge against Mr. Bordynuik with resulting incarceration and some disgorgement for his shareholders before the money is completely spent. The shareholders who tell for Mr. Bordynuil<'s story do not realize it now but they will be grateful in the future if this is successful.
Please correct your suit to name JBI Inc.'s controlling shareholder, Mr. John Bordynuik, as the plaintiff in this defamation suit instead of JBI, Inc.. As I said, I rarely even mention the company itself — the company itself is just a tool which Mr. Bordynuik is using. I have no interest in making any comments of wrongdoing against a non-sentient company which is for many intents and purposes still a shell company. Shells by themselves don't swindle people.
Please feel tree to use this full letter in its entirety in any way you see fit as you and your client move forward with litigation against me.
Kurt Feierabend