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.
Keep in mind though that the focus is on contacts underlying the plaintiff's claims, not isolated contacts. I don't think that old domain name will matter.
The company claims in the below link to their 10K that the tape business revenue financed Javaco, Pakit, and P2O. Can someone please show me any evidence that this actually occured? The tape business was a huge money loser. How could it have financed these multi-million dollar purchases?
Javaco Acquisition
On August 24, 2009, the Company and Domark International, Inc. (“Domark”) closed a Securities Purchase Agreement whereby the Company purchased 100% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Javaco, Inc. (“Javaco”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Domark, in exchange for $150,000 and the issuance of 2,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to Domark.
In connection with the Agreement, Domark has also assigned $9,997,134 of media credits in print and radio to the Company in exchange for the issuance of 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.
. . . .
Pak-It Acquisition
On September 30, 2009, 310 Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a Unit Purchase and Exchange Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Pak-It, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Pak-It”) and the Pak-It, LLC unitholders (the “Pak-It Unitholders”).
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding membership units and all of the assets of Pak-It including Pak-It’s wholly owned subsidiary Dickler Chemical Laboratories, Inc., in exchange for the issuance of 625,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and the issuance of two secured promissory notes. Pursuant to a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), the Company issued a secured promissory note to a trustee in the amount of One Million Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) which is due on December 29, 2009 with a 10% interest rate (the “Note”). In addition, the Company has assumed and will satisfy certain liabilities of Pak-It by issuing a note in the amount of Two Million Six Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($2,665,000) due on December 29, 2009 with a 10% interest rate (the “Liability Note”) collectively the Note and Liability Note are referred to as the “Notes”.
The Company’s Chief Executive Officer, John Bordynuik and the Company have entered into a Pledge Escrow Agreement (the “Pledge”), whereby Mr. Bordynuik has pledged 10,000,000 shares of his holdings in the Company’s common stock and the Company has pledged 100% of the issued and outstanding membership units of Pak-It, LLC as collateral for the Notes. In addition, the Notes are secured by security agreements (the “Security Agreements”) against (i) the accounts, general intangibles and contract rights; (ii) the inventory; and (iii) the equipment of Pak-It.
Yes, the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) does not contain all permit applications. Specifically, as stated in the DEC website:
Minor Projects. Applications for minor projects are not normally published in the ENB.
In addition to SEQR notices, the following notices are required by law to appear in the ENB (appropriate sections of law indicated in the parentheses):
. . . .
•Publish notices of DEC complete applications (all major projects and minor projects at its discretion). (ECL 70-0109 [2][a])
Last the comment period-- I have to scratch my head here because if we both agree that a State Facility Permit is required, how is it that all other permit applications considered in 2010 for Region 9 had a comment period?
Hi again.
I'm not sure about comparisons to cars and trucks, but I see that the Title V issue is now laid to rest.
Yes, that brings us back to state (as opposed to Federal) regulations regarding permitting. Based solely on the emissions data we have available, there is no reason to think JBI will be subject to the heightened scrutiny of major projects. As I have recognized before, that ultimate determination is left to the authority of the DEC, and we do not have all the data that is or will be before that agency. We are thus limited to the data that has been released. With that in mind, here is a DEC summary of the major vs. minor dichotomy that we have discussed in the past:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6244.html
Note that the thresholds in the DEC chart are set in TONS per year. The 5,677 lbs. of NOx you noted does not come anywhere close to those thresholds.
Yes, this is a summary, and should not be treated as all-inclusive. To date, however, I have not seen any substantiated basis for imposing heightened regulation. We have discussed previously the public hearing and comment requirements in the context of DEC classifications, so I will not go back into that now. Suffice it to say that the public hearing and comment requirements imposed on major projects are not imposed on minor projects (subject to exceptions).
I am not up to date on the board, so please let me know if I am missing some recent information. Sorry if it takes me some time to respond.
Fuel blending and distribution site PR:
http://www.jbiglobal.com/news/2010-press-releases/20100212-jbi-acquires-fuel-distribution-and-blending-site.aspx
You have asked a number of good questions, but I agree with "the big guy" in that you likely will not find your answers on this board. I'll try to be of what little help I can (probably none).
Will this permit be specific to the feedstock that was used for the stack test?
And if so, wouldn’t additional stack tests/permits be required for other feedstocks?
Will the processor’s “near diesel” output be going to the JBI blending facility for further refinement, or is it to be sold as is?
Does JBI have a buyer lined up for the end product, if so, who?
The application is for use in connection with more than one permit type. The instructions explain what information is required depending on the project and permit at issue.
Here are the instructions again: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/permitinst.pdf
Scroll down to page 4 and you will see that Title V certification applies only to Title V applications.
Thanks for posting. You have done some very thorough research.
For those who are curious, here is what the application itself looks like: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/main.pdf
The precise contours of the application vary depending on the permit at issue.
To me a permit means a few pages at most of factual information about the entity requesting the permit (no data processing required) with the results of any testing stapled to it.
Thank you Sandra. I wish you all the best as well.
Sandra, the tone of your posts has changed significantly. You were once a strong advocate of both the company and Mr. Bordynuik. You have said before that you have known John for a long time and have been impressed by his accomplishments. Although your recent messages have been somewhat cryptic, it seems your opinion has changed. I am curious, what is the reason for the change?
For comparison:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38896424
Thanks in advance for some clarity.
That's fine, we can always agree to disagree. I certainly don't expect you to take my word for anything, but I also have not been presented with any information (whether from regs, DEC links, books, or otherwise) that would lead me to conclude that a public hearing is required. I will keep my mind open if new information is presented to me. Like you said, though, this is just a small issue in the grand scheme of things.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
I think, then, that we have identified the discrepancy between our viewpoints. As we both know (and sorry for repeating), we are concerned, at the moment, only with the procedures of the N.Y. DEC, not some other state jurisdiction. Oregon, as you have noted, has different requirements.
Here is what appears to be the default category under the Oregon regs. (cursory review mind you):
(c) Category III -- The Department will provide notice of the proposed permit action and a minimum of 35 days to submit written comments. The Department will provide a minimum of 30 days notice for a hearing, if one is scheduled. The Department will schedule a hearing to allow interested persons to submit oral or written comments if:
And just for being rude, I'm going to point out the other errors in your post.
Apparently some don't know the law. If there hasn't been a response by JBI, that means big trouble. In florida, you have 21 days to respond to a lawsuit. If you don't respond within 21 days, you lose by default. No appeals, no nothing, you lose period. Then the suit moves on to the judgement phase to determine damages. Usually, if the defendant doesn't respond and loses by default, they get hit with the max damages.
So there is only two possiblities at this point. It's possible that the court didn't enter JBI's response, or they simply failed to respond which would decimate the company.
Also take a look at scion's recent post from the second of the two lawsuits we know of. See those documents stamped "RETURN OF SERVICE"?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55594844
Look at what shows up on the docket he posted:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=55598136
There is no need to be rude, and you did not read my post very carefully.
As I said, and as you quoted:
I am aware of only two lawsuits, one of which appears to be going nowhere.
http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CivilDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=2010CA005989
No return of service entered to date.
You are still leaving me guessing as to your reasoning. Which set of threshold emission levels are you referring to (there are many), and why do the potential emissions from JBI compel a public hearing and/or public comment period in light of those thresholds?
Again, though, I don't see how you can arrive at this conclusion:
In New York DEC-terms this means a State Facility Permit and comment period at minimum. Then a determination if a hearing is necessary.
§621.2 Definitions
. . . .
(r)Major Project means any action requiring a permit identified in section 621.1 of this Part, which is specifically defined as major or which is not specifically defined as minor in section 621.4 of this Part.
(s) Minor Project means any action listed as minor in section 621.4 of this Part, subject to the reservations of paragraph 621.3(b)(3). Actions identified as Type II in Parts 617 and 618 of this Title are minor except where such an action is listed as major by permit type in section 621.4 of this Part. Minor projects are projects which by their nature and with respect to their location are not likely to have a significant impact on the environment.
This Part applies to applications for the permits listed below which are submitted to the department or its agents.
. . . .
(g) Air Pollution Control, ECL article 19, (implemented by 6 NYCRR Parts 201, 203, and 231): including construction and operation of a new emission source or a modification to an existing emission source of air contamination, and construction of indirect sources of air contamination;
Permit applications are processed following a number of steps prescribed by regulation (6 NYCRR Part 621).
Where is your support for this?
Oh and let’s not forget there is a new lawsuit daily, and some of them are actually legit.
Where I'm not following you is when you conclude that it is a minor project that is being treated as major. How are you arriving at that determination?
Are you combining these statements?
(e) The department normally does not require public hearings in connection with applications for minor projects, as identified in sections 621.3 and 621.4 of this Part. If a public hearing is required for a minor project, the application shall be treated as a major project for purposes of this Part. [emphasis added]
The procedures for the Department's processing of permits applications are found in 6 NYCRR Part 621. These procedures require that draft permits be made available for comment by interested parties before being issued. . . . Notices regarding draft permits that are eligible for review and comment are published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin.
§621.7 Public notice and comment.
(a) Immediately upon determining that an application is complete and is for a major project:
(1) The department must provide notice to the chief executive officer of the municipality in which the proposed project is to be located, and to any person who has previously expressed in writing an interest in receiving such notification.
(2) The department must also publish a notice of complete application in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, no more than 10 calendar days after the date of notice to the applicant.
(b) The notice must contain the following information:
(1) The applicant's name.
(2) A brief description of the proposed project and its location.
(3) A list of all department permits for the project for which application has been made, and identification numbers for those applications.
(4) The name and telephone number of the department representative and, where applicable, of any lead agency representative to contact for further information.
(5) The status of environmental reviews conducted under SEQR, including identification of lead agency, positive or negative determination of significance, and whether the action is Type I, unlisted, or Type II as defined in Part 617 or 618 of this Title.
(6) The deadline for submission of written comments on the application, including any request for a public hearing. The minimum time frames for review and comment are as follows:
(i) applications supported by a SEQR negative declaration, not less than 15 days after the date of publication unless otherwise specified in this paragraph;
(ii) applications supported by a SEQR draft environmental impact statement, not less than 30 days after the date of publication;
(iii) Mined Land Reclamation applications, not less than 30 days after the date of publication;
(iv) Delegated State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, delegated air pollution control permits, and other federally enforceable air permits, not less than 30 days after the date of publication; or
(v) HWMF permits or RAPs, not less than 45 days after the date of publication.
(vi) Where notices are required to be published in multiple publications, and the publication dates fail to coincide such that the deadline dates for submission of written comments to the department are not similar, the final deadline for comments shall be the latest of the published deadline dates.
(7) For delegated permits, the tentative determination and the availability of either the draft permit or notice of intent to deny:
(i) If the tentative determination is to issue the permit, then the department must prepare and issue a draft permit containing the following information:
(a) for SPDES, information required to be in permits as provided in Part 750 of this Title;
(b) for HWMF, information required under section 373-1.4(d) or for RAPs set forth in section 373-1.11(d)(2) of this Title; and
(c) for air pollution control, information required under New Source Non Attainment Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review pursuant to Parts 231 and Part 201 of this Title for projects subject to Title V facility permit requirements.
(ii) If the determination is to deny the permit, then the department must issue a notice of intent to deny.
(iii) If, after issuing a notice of intent to deny a permit, the department makes a determination based on additional information or further consideration that a permit may be issued, the department may upon the applicant's consent:
(a) withdraw the notice of intent to deny;
(b) issue a draft permit; and
(c) provide public notice of the intent to issue a permit in accordance with this Part.
(8) For delegated permits, the notice of complete application will serve as a fact sheet for projects or facilities on a list agreed to by the department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or for projects that the department finds are the subject of significant public interest or raise substantive and significant issues. The notice of complete application must include the information required under:
(i) section 750-1.7 of this Title for SPDES permits;
(ii) Part 373 of this Title for HWMF permits or RAP permits; and
(iii) for air pollution control permits subject to Subpart 231-2 of this Title, the notice must state that information regarding the demonstration of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT)or both are available from the department and may be reviewed upon request.
(9) For title V facility permits, the notice of complete application must state that the EPA has the authority to bar issuance of the subject permit (see Part 201 of this Title).
(c) Publication of a notice of complete application in a newspaper is required for all major projects.
(d) Public announcement broadcast over local radio stations is required for complete applications on all HWMF permits or RAPs.
(e) The department may provide or require the applicant to provide other reasonable public notice of complete application. Such notice may include, but is not limited to, the distribution or posting of information about the proposed project in the area in which the proposed project is to be located, conduct of public information meetings, translation of notices for non-English speaking communities and the establishment of document repositories in the area in which the proposed project is to be located, and must contain the information specified in paragraphs 621.6(b)(1) through (9) of this section.
(f) If the application is determined to be complete and for a minor project, the notice must contain:
(1) information required by paragraphs (1)-(5) of subdivision (b) of this section; and
(2) a statement that the application is for a minor project.
(g) For minor projects, some or all of the above procedures in subdivisions 621.6 (a),(c), and (d) of this section may be required of the applicant, at the discretion of the department.
(h) Part 624 of this Title governs public comment procedures for projects subject to public adjudicatory hearing.
(i) Notice of complete application required under this section must also be provided to:
(1) all agencies which have jurisdiction to fund, approve or are directly undertaking the project;
(2) agencies with which the department is required to consult prior to its determination of completeness, including but not limited to those responsible for historic preservation and coastal zone management;
(3) the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other persons and agencies as required for federally delegated permits;
(4) any affected states and Indian governments for new projects, major permit modifications and permit renewals subject to air Title V facility permit requirements;
(5) for sources subject to air New Source Review permit requirements pursuant to Part 231 of this Title:
(i) affected states and Indian governments;
(ii) the federal land manager of federal class 1 areas whose air may be affected by the proposed source, and
(iii) the county chief executive, any local air pollution control agency and any comprehensive regional land use planning agency where the proposed source would be located;
(6) for Mined Land Reclamation permits, on lands not previously permitted pursuant to article 23, title 27 of the ECL, the department must send a notice by certified mail return receipt requested to the chief administrative officer of the political subdivision in which the proposed mine is to be located. This notice must:
(i) be accompanied by copies of all documents that comprise the complete application;
(ii) state whether the application is for a major project or a minor project pursuant to section 621.4(i) of this Part; and
(iii) allow thirty days for the chief administrative officer to provide comments on the application in regard to:
(a) appropriate setbacks from property boundaries or public thoroughfare rights-of-way;
(b) fabricated or natural barriers designed to restrict access if needed, and, if affirmative the type, length, height and location thereof;
(c) the control of dust;
(d) hours of operation; and
(e) whether mining is prohibited at that location.
(7) any person on a mailing list, developed by the department, of persons interested in such projects. The department must publish a notice in the Environmental Notice Bulletin of the opportunity to be on the list.
Minor Projects. Applications for minor projects are not normally published in the ENB. [Environmental Notices Bulletin]
I haven't read the application forms, but my guess is that the applicant makes the initial determination of the type of permit being sought, perhaps in consultation with the DEC. Assuming this is the case, the DEC would of course retain oversight, so good luck to Mr. Applicant trying to pass off an application for a minor project when the pollution levels subject it to Title V (actually, in that case there would be two authorities to contend with).
You are absolutely right that many people (myself included) thought that the permit process would be further along by now. The fact is we are invested in what is largely a start-up company in a very young industry. Of course there will complications and setbacks to the business plan. Whether the particular setbacks and complications in JBI's case are warranted or justified is a decision left for our own individual determinations.
By using the term "subject," I meant that the emissions were subject to regulation by the DEC. The scope to which they are regulated depends on a host of considerations, most notably the potential emission levels generating by company operations.
With this in mind, if the project is determined to be a "minor project," then I don't think the DEC would hold a public hearing, based on the following provision in the regulations:
"Section 621.8.* Determination to conduct a public hearing.
. . . .
(e) The department normally does not require public hearings in connection with applications for minor projects, as identified in sections 621.3 and 621.4 of this Part. If a public hearing is required for a minor project, the application shall be treated as a major project for purposes of this Part."
In prior posts, I have always qualified my statements by indicating that a public hearing is not "ordinarily" required, as the regulation quoted above leaves open that possibility. In my view, the reason for that is to retain some discretion with the DEC to ascertain which projects, though technically minor, should be subject to the scrutiny of the public hearing process. I have no reason to believe that would be the case with JBI (the facility is in a very industrial location), but of course the possibility remains open as a matter of DEC discretion (and understandably so). Under the previous section, 621.7 (which I only skimmed just now), it looks like the DEC is to provide some basic public notification of the project (the scope of which is again subject to DEC discretion).
(I am going to attempt again to post the regs, this time from the DEC website, rather than the Dept of State's website. Sorry if the link doesn't work.)
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4486.html#18129
I don't believe this notification provision would do anything to delay the permit.
I will note in passing that many environmental terms are words of art. Their precise meaning depends on the context used, and regulations at issue. The term "pollutant" or "toxin" thus may vary depending on whether it is being used in its common sense, or as defined by reg in a certain context. (I am not saying this to justify anything that may have been posted by someone else in the past.)
Thanks for posting this information. I would like to add to your post to clarify that the language you highlighted regarding public comments is, as stated, applicable only to "major projects." My emphasis in your quote is underlined below.
Step 3: Respond to Public Comments
The Uniform Procedures Act recognizes minor projects and major projects.
If your project is major, then the project is subject to public review, as follows:
A Notice of Complete Application is published by the Department in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB). You must also publish this notice in a local newspaper.
The public must submit any comments before the deadline in the Notice, usually either 15 or 30 days after the date the Notice is published, depending on the permit type requested. The Department may ask you to provide responses to the public's comments. Prepare clear and informative responses which address public concerns and seriously consider recommendations. This will reduce the likelihood of a public hearing.
Based on any comments received and on staff's review of the project against permitting standards, DEC decides whether to hold a public hearing. For more information, refer to the Guide for Public Hearings.
Sorry, but it's not clear at all. What is it that you say one must get around to avoid public comment and hearing?
Of course JBI's potential emissions are subject to regulation; otherwise there would be no need for a permit in connection with such emissions. Why do you think the permit necessarily carries with it the need for public comment and hearing?
I am rather certain that is not the case.
MLM, it is understandable for the DEC to refrain from stating conclusively as to which regulatory requirements will be applicable to JBI's operations until all pertinent information is before it, and it has rendered a decision on that information. Public hearings are not ordinarily required for minor projects. Whether a project is minor or major is not a simple mathematical calculation, nor is it wholly subjective on the part of the DEC. It is not a simple task to navigate the waters of environmental regulations, particularly when both state and federal requirements may be imposed depending on the nature of the project, the resulting emissions (in the case of air regulations), and the project's proximity to natural resources.
At the end of this post is just a sample of what constitutes a "major" project under DEC regulations. You will see cross-references to both state and federal regulations in the list. Additionally, even the below list is subject to reservations set forth in another section of the regulations.
This is not to suggest that knowledgeable professionals (which I am not) would be unable to determine with certainty which regulations apply to JBI, nor is it to suggest that those with experience in assessing industrial projects would have difficulty in determining an appropriate classification. My point, rather, is that the scope of pertinent considerations provides great reason for the DEC to refrain from classifying a project in advance of receiving and considering all necessary information.
Until that happens, all the DEC logically can do is render an inconclusive guess with reservations. According on Dave's post, it appears that is what has happened:
[Statement subject to verification:] 8. They expect NO comment period because the emission levels they expect in the report to be substantially below the levels that would require a comment period.
[DEC Answer:] I suspect this is true but can't promise until we receive a permit application. The public comment period is only 30 days though.
That seems far-fetched to claim millions in "lost opportunity." I agree that the misrepresentation count against John Bordynuik (not a claim against JBI) is rather vague, thus making it difficult to quantify the amount of alleged damages Kaplanis is claiming in that count. However, I don't see how Bordynuik's alleged inducement of Kaplanis into entering into employment with JBI would entitle Kaplanis to more than he otherwise would have been entitled to under the terms of the employment agreement. Indeed, this somewhat specious misrepresentation claim appears to be an attempt to circumvent basic contract principles in an effort to hold Bordynuik personally liable (or at least to raise the spectre of such liability to obtain a favorable settlement). My guess is that we will see the merits of this count challenged at the early stages of this litigation.
Your claim is ridiculous.
Please read the lawsuit. The lawsuit is pretty clear what they are asking for and it is the value of the damages claimed. He is claiming millions in damages therefore the lawsuit is for millions.
Mr. Kaplanis's company has the same address as PakIt listed in its corporate filings and Mr. Weber is was the registered agent for Pakit and for Mr. Kaplanis's corporation.
Incorporated by Geoffrey Weber, John Bordynuik, Ron Kurp, Pak-It, LLC is located at 221 Turner St Clearwater, FL 33756. Pak-It, LLC was incorporated on Sunday, June 03, 2007 in the State of FL and is currently active.
Yes, I see when you click on the publisher (i.e., "Editors Desk"), you get an email address that appears to be that of Steve Kanaval. I'm not sure that means he is the author, but I don't doubt it either. In any event, I don't see how this article is indicative of some "hype" scheme orchestrated by Steve Kanaval (as you seem to be insinuating), despite your exuberant "booyah." If this is not the inference you would like the reader to make, then please answer my original question: What does Steve Kanaval have to do with JBI?
Also, the disclosure page you requested I link to led me to a list of paying clients of World Market Media. I did not see JBI listed among them.
Um, what does Steve Kanaval have to do with JBI? Are you sure he was even the author of that article you posted? The only name I see is Julia A. Watson (listed as the "contact" on the pdf version).
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify.
Hi MLM,
I read your posts this evening, but am having difficulty putting them together. I see that some of those posts were in response to deleted messages, so perhaps that is the problem. This is not an affront to you; I just would like to understand what you are insinuating. It appears that you are challenging the capacity of the system to accommodate the heat generated by the plastic conversion process. Is this correct? And would you please be so kind as to set forth your reasoning in a single post or message, particularly since I do not have the benefit of the deleted posts to ascertain the meaning of your responses thereto. I am not asking for a lesson in physics (although I admit I am not an expert in that field), so please feel free to use technical terms to explain the substance of your posts.
Thanks in advance.
The SEC filing really doesn't mean anything to the average shareholder. He amended to add his wife. So what?
Resolution of the issues raised in the bankruptcy proceeding, on the other hand, will to some extent determine who will end up with ownership of the shares. Will it be Kidd and wife as the result of an exemption? A creditor holding a judicial lien against the account? We will have to wait and see how the bankruptcy plays out before we will know for sure. If Kidd loses on his attempt to claim the account as exempt, he may even decide to drop the bankruptcy and continue fighting creditors in state court. Who knows?
Good guess-work.
The fundamental change between this filing and the prior one is that Kidd added his wife's name. In his bankruptcy, Kidd is trying to claim that his JBI stock (and whatever else is held in his Maxim brokerage account) is exempt from the claims of his creditors by virtue of his wife's co-ownership of the stock/account. Note that the previous SEC filings by Kidd reported that he was the owner with "sole power to vote and dispose" of the JBI stock. The latest filing reports that he and his wife own the stock as tenants by the entirety (a form of co-ownership).
Compare the language of the latest Kidd schedule 13D...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1333293/000121390010003910/sc13da3kidd_jbi.htm
...with the prior one...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1333293/000121390010000650/sc13d0210kidda2_jbi.htm
...or any of the ones that preceded it.
Scion has posted portions of the bankruptcy filings, so you can find them by checking his prior posts. (They are public records, so you can also get them through the court.)
The copy I was referencing I got from scion, who in turn likely got it via Kidd's bankruptcy filings (given his prior "Pacer" update of those proceedings).
Also, I think your accounting is a little off. The JBI stock, per the SEC filings, started at 3,500,000, but it has also been reported that:
100,000 was transferred to a media company and
900,000 was transferred pursuant to a settlement agreement with Judy Vazquez and JBI
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1333293/000121390010003910/sc13da3kidd_jbi.htm
Also, it looks like Kidd transferred some shares in private (off the open market) transactions, such as the one reported here (involving 250,000 shares):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1365160/000116552710000260/g3986.txt
The above would bring the difference down to 210,000.
They all look restricted to me. Look at that block of words below the cusip number in the upper right hand corner of certificates 1 through 4. I think it is easiest to read on certificate 3 of this link you posted:
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/cbmTcc
It looks to me like it says (in all caps), "The securities represented by this certificate have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, or applicable state securities laws. The securities have been acquired for investment and not with a view toward resale, and may not be offered for sale, sold, transferred or assigned in the absence of an effective registration statement for the securities under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, or applicable state securities laws. . . ."
I think the difference with the last certificate (for 1,750,000 shares) is that it is stamped (in all caps) "Restricted Stock" on the top of the certificate, and then states in the lower right hand corner (again in all caps), "See legend on reverse side." Presumably the legend mirrors that of the other certificates.
Such matters must be handled delicately. If an insider were to buy a substantial interest in the company in advance of anticipated positive news, such insider would run the risk of being accused of insider trading. Conversely, if an insider were to sell a substantial interest in the company in advance of bad news, the trade would likewise raise some eyebrows. This is particularly true of a relatively thinly traded corporation, as any major buying or selling activity could have a profound impact on the current PPS. Sure there are mitigation techniques, and corporate insiders are not precluded from trading in the company's stock, but the risk is amplified when done at the cusp of anticipated major developments (whether one believes in the merits or not).
Shareholders with substantial interests who are not insiders are a separate matter. A shareholder who obtains shares pursuant to a corporate buyout would understandably seek liquidity and diversification to protect his or her interest from unknown risks outside of such shareholder's control. If such shareholder were not convinced of the prosperity of the business plan of the acquiring corporation, then of course there would be increased incentive to sell. The motivation behind "ex-insiders", so to speak, cannot be determined with any certainty, assuming they are selling at all. The heightened volume certainly suggests activity by a larger shareholder(s), so I certainly do not dismiss the possibility of former Pak-It or other previously involved individuals from selling, but I question whether a correlation can be drawn between the selling and the assumed knowledge on the part of those who have exited the business (I am reading into your post, bueno, and do not mean to attribute these statements to you). Departing insiders are no longer privy to insider information (assuming they ever had insider information of P2O, given the distinctive business entities that comprise JBI), and I believe there are often holding periods for even former insiders that create a gap between departure and free trading (my vague recollection is around 3 months for unregistered shares, but please step in anyone to correct me).
Actually, your point is not clear at all. I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't see any "shifting expectations" regarding permitting. Proper permitting has always been an element to JBI's success, and thus the focus of discussions concerning any progress toward obtaining the requisite permitting.
If you have a valid point to make, please spell it out for me--not suggestively by reference to out-of-context posts, but concisely and directly.
These are easy affirmations to make when they are self-proclaimed.
I know my crediblity is unmatched and I know that I am the most knowledgeable source on JBI.