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 did a Google search myself and found this JBI history gem. Boy I sure miss PaperProhet...he really knew how to "keep it Real"
Another Red Flag joins the many others fluttering around JBI Inc.[JBII] -- Notice to Cease and Desist Internet Defamation
OCR extract:
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
-------
I also happen to notice the words "fuel inventories" are missing from any of the past 10Q's including the most recent.
I happen to notice the word "storage" is missing in the email.
Dusting?
The blending site has been collecting dust for a year and a half now.
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
FWIW I drove by the blending site Saturday morning, the gates were open and I saw two people working near the tanks.... no idea what they were doing but they were doing something. fwiw :o)
I like the whole post better, especially the UFO line..that one cracked me up again...lol
Artiztic1 Share Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:46:28 AM
Re: lovethatgreen post# 116310 Post # of 136913
What ever happened to Al Sousa's 45 site JV in Florida? How many years have they had to work out that agreement? Just another LOI that bites the dust - like the last Naptha deal LOI.
LOI aka - Letter of Improbability.
Al Sousa's name or JV wasn't even mentioned during the AGM - but there was personal sightings of him, and a new mysterious - nameless billionaire, maybe even a UFO...lol
Even if JB mentioned a possibility of a JV with SSCC this doesn't mean squat, as Rock Tenn wears the pants now.
It's ok to dream, but right now all you have is a dream.
Here's the real and only irony, RKT signed at deal with no Risks or Costs to them. So what part of "NO Risk" don't you understand?
See my earlier post:
"They took absolutely no risk and didn't invest one cent, so they have nothing to lose. It's even in the Contract that JBI cleans up their mess if they make one - no brainer.
RKT is able to force JBI to take their junk/raggertail for free at no risks or costs to RKT. I'm sure RKT is even smart enough to have money held in escrow at JBI's expense - to later return the property back to it's original condition if JBI fails, and will probably be made a part of any agreement addendum."
Why wouldn't RKT sign that deal?
Here's some irony -- I thought there was going to be no way in Hades that NYSE: RKT was ever going to sign a deal with JBII until they had patents because a deal with JBII would be far too risky to NYSE: RKT and they'd never expose themselves like that.
Now the deal is signed and it carries no risk? lol lol lol lol
Wow.
They took absolutely no risk and didn't invest one cent, so they have nothing to lose. It's even in the Contract that JBI cleans up their mess if they make one - no brainer.
RKT is able to force JBI to take their junk/raggertail for free at no risks or costs to RKT. I'm sure RKT is even smart enough to have money held in escrow at JBI's expense - to later return the property back to it's original condition if JBI fails, and will probably be made a part of any agreement addendum.
Why wouldn't RKT sign that deal?
Contingent upon the Agreement Addendum, filed with the mythical and elusive Data Patent.
First NYSE: RKT facility ready to rock and roll apparently:
"Within ninety (90) days of the date of this Agreement, or such other time as the Parties may agree in writing, JBI shall provide Grantor with construction drawings for the AST System, the Pad and the Steel Shed (collectively, the “ Drawings ”). The Drawings shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the state where the RockTenn Facility is located."
Obviously the first location is determined
Standard terms like RKT did?
I'm sorry, who in their right mind wouldn't agree to JBI's "standard terms" when the only standard terms we've seen so far has JBI paying 100% of the complete nut and throwing in revenue sharing and discounts to boot?
The DD by them was real, perhaps they wouldn't agree to JBI's standard terms like RKT did.
Yeah...they purposely left out WM and OXY to make room for these head turners:
Including the following members of the OARA:
Plazek Auto Recyclers (Caistor Centre, ON)
Rush's Auto Wreckers (Caledonia, ON)
Hydro Metal Recycling (St. Catharines, ON)
Select Total Service (Port Robinson, ON
Yeah... It's a shame that JBII didn't publish it's books on-line... like so many other companies do.
Here's what I posted.
It's funny how they must have forgot to add the mysteriously missing WM from that list, and where's the mention of OXY from the current customer lists and new website?
Things that make you go...hmmm
http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/current-partnerships
You write:
>>Another response crushing misinformation:
Hello XXXXXX,
Yes the Oxy PO was shipped and the revenue was included in the 10Q. We converted waste plastic into fuel for both Oxy and Coco. We are not permitted to convert any other waste material into fuel at this time.<<
Where's the misinformation?
I never stated in that post that they didn't have a sale to OXY, what I did ask was "where's the mention of OXY from the current customer lists and new website?"so where's the misinformation that you alledgedly crushed?
What I implied, and the intent was to imply that OXY is no longer a "CURRENT CUSTOMER" by the mere fact and evidenced by that they're no longer even mentioned as a "current customer".
Also,where's the mention of WM, maybe that's filed with the elusive data patent?
It's funny how they must have forgot to add the mysteriously missing WM from that list, and where's the mention of OXY from the current customer lists and new website?
Things that make you go...hmmm
http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/current-partnerships
Honestly, who ever said number one was ever up and running at constant full DEC allowed capacity? What we've recently heard is that the plant is running normally. Unfortunately,one can only intelligently interpret normally as the same old song and dance - on and off, with mostly off as evidenced by the tale of the tape/quarterly reports.
After all this time, and after they received the go ahead 10 MONTHS ago for Commercial Production - this is truly unacceptable. The fact that they never had one running constantly earning money to FUEL the business going forward is truly illogical at best.
The plan should have always been tweak/improve others while getting the money in on number one. That plan wasn't/isn't rocket science just intelligent business, and it only speaks to how Johnny Boy Genius may not be such a Genius after all. He's only a piss poor business man at best or worse a lousy crook and liar.
IMHO, heads should be rolling if 3Q doesn't see MASSIVE gains in new fuel sales/contracts/inventory - after all this time the three processors should be running non stop going forward. Quit playing with the plug and play processors and plug the damn things in already.
Unfortunately, no one can call for John's head, as he insured that he would have majority voting rights with his 100-1 stock that he gave himself, under the guise of returning shares to the shareholders.
The BS clock is certainly ticking (TIC TOC) and this ruse can only continue for so long.
It's put up or shut up time.
October,5th 2011: JBI, Inc. Shareholder Update
Based on these PR's and the losses that followed, I'm not sure I'd be hoping for any more new NEWS RELEASES from JOHNNY BOY GENIUS.
Some of my all time favorite Updates for shareholders:
June 25, 2009: 310 Holdings Inc. Enters Into Definitive Asset Purchase Agreement With John Bordynuik Inc. (only later to have this Armless transaction be restated - Decrease in the value of assets acquired from John Bordynuik, Inc. (572,102)!!
At the High of day, the Price per share the day of the news release was around $2.02 for a nice 45% loss at todays pps.
July 9, 2009: 310 Holdings Inc. Files Patent Application for Plastic2Oil Technology - (Hmmm...that one must be filed with the ever elusive and mythical/top secret data patent, that is now mysteriously absent from the latest 10Q) with a PPS and HOD of 1.49 would equal a 25% loss at todays pps - two years later.
October 1, 2009: 310 Holdings Inc. Acquires Chemical Company Pak-It...(then later boasts about 50,000,000 in sales in 5 years, then JOHNNY BOY GENIUS successfully runs this company straight into the ground. Pak-it otherwise known as bend over and "Pak-in" those losses.) PPS close to break even with todays price.
December 22, 2009: JBI, Inc. Executes JV LOI With Rick Heddle, Signs LOI for 45 Florida P2O Sites, and Will Apply for ASE Listing. (still working on it - "trust me" any day now...we're still super excited)price opened at around $3.50 per share and reached a high around 5.00 per - those were the days. Hopefully, you didn't buy and hold any from that release.
August 28, 2009: 310 Holdings, Inc. Completed the Acquisition of Javaco Inc. and then also successfully ran this company straight into the ground as well...wait a minute before you bash JOHNNY BOY GENIUS for his brilliant purchase of Javaco - it came with, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it....$10,000,000 worth of Media credits that were later restated to be worth less than fiddy cents.
February 12, 2010: JBI, Inc. Acquires Large Independent Fuel Blending and Distribution Site (Then On 2011-09-25, at 6:53 PM
in a private message/email) "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 - implying processors number two and three are still not operating, after almost a year of getting the go-ahead to build them and start the COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION PHASE that was PUMPED by JBI as only being held up by the DEC!
February 12, 2010: JBI, Inc. Hires Experienced Ship Captain Michael Moneyhan to Oversee P2O Ship Expansion (When, what he really meant was "hurry up and back up the boat and BUY more shares") HOD PPS $6.30 any shares purchased could now be holding a 82% Loss. OUCH, I hope nobody bought on that day.
February 12, 2010: AS PTO, LLC Accepts Reservation Deposit With Tampa PTO, LLC for a Potential P2O Processing Site in Florida (this ones almost ready to ROCK...WEEEEEEEEEEEE)
February 12th was a busy day for IR - 18 PUMP I mean press releases. Unfortunately,even the JBI MASTER PUMP PLAN backfired and got screwed up when all PUMP releases were accidently released on the same day.
December 15, 2010: JBI, Inc. Plastic2Oil Process Commences Commercial Operation....Did someone forget to tell Johnny BOY Genius that he could actually start Commercial production...Hmmm?
Any Shares bought HOD only looking at around a 65% LOSS.
August 8, 2011: JBI, Inc. Announces a Ten-Year Agreement for Commercially Viable Conversion of Waste Plastic to Fuel.
Hmmm, on the very same day they signed the Letter Agreement with RockTenn dated July 14, 2011 JBI got served the SEC "ALL IS NOT WELL NOTICE".... I think the negotiation went something like this - yes sir, we'll pay for the building, yes sir, we'll pay for the pads, yes sir, we'll pay for the tanks,applications,fees,permits, plans,transportation,digging etc,etc,etc.... wait there's more for a limited time only(TODAY)if you sign.. we'll throw in a 20% discount and revenue sharing, and who knows what else they agreed to pay and give up in all the contract redactions. The very Contract that is contingent upon the new and elusive Agreement Addendum.
One can only wonder if there will be any profit for JBI at all ever. By looking at his track record and running Javaco/Pak-IN into the ground the answer leans towards never. Shares that were bought on the day of this news release (the 8th) are currently looking at around a FIDDY PERCENT LOSS.
If JBI can't dye their own fuel, that statement could only mean they are buying fuel elsewhere and diluting their own P2O fuel with it, to make it available for sale.
So JBI is buying fuels that already have dyes in it, to blend with their own fuel, that's going to eat into the profit margins.
The company has it's fuel mixed with other similar fuel that already has dyes etc in it, to meet standards. Being approved to do it's own dyeing of fuel would eliminate that step.
The blending site has been collecting dust for a year and a half now.
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
www.plastic2oil.com
To prepare for these efforts, JBI has recently acquired a fuel-blending facility in Thorold, which will house the first processor in Canada. The site enables the company to blend fuel from the P2O processors with additives to make gasoline and diesel that can be sold at the pump.
"The fuel from the blending site will be sold to industrial sources first because they are supplying us with great plastic and wish to purchase the fuel for their own trucks. We intend to use the blending site to sell fuel to independent gas stations in Q4 this year," says Bordynuik.
JOHN BORDYNUIK'S PLAN TO FIX THE WORLD
Niagara Magazine September/October 2010 https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/r6bbbg
Ever wonder why the deal with RockTenn was so one sided with JBI, bending over and agreeing to pay the whole nut and then some? JBI agreed to pay for the complete building buildout, pads, tanks the whole 9 yards,huge discount to fuel, revenue sharing agreement - and who knows what else (maybe lunch for the entire Rocktenn company for the next ten years)
It's because they were negotiating from a position of weakness. On July 14th JBI received the Wells notice. On July 14th JBI bent over and gave away the farm and also signed the letter agreement with RockTenn.
Coincidence, I think not.
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.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011004691/f10q0611_jbi.htm
nothing in this Agreement is intended to supersede, limit or in any way modify the indemnity in the Letter Agreement between the Parties dated July 14, 2011
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011004040/f8k072911ex10i_jbi.htm
Jbi hasn't announced any such partnership with Waste Management, or did I miss it? What exactly is the nature of the partnership?Can you please post that link or news release?
Or is this alledged partnership, that JBI accepts municiple waste from WM at the recycling center? If thats the total of the partnership it's not much of one, or even worth boasting about.
I do know that Waste Management fully understands what JBI have to offer and that is why they have partnered with JBI.
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
Can anyone provide a link to the agreement addendum "ADD ON", the very "ADD ON" that without nobody can move forward?
The exclusive license, is only exclusive to any RockTenn facility covered by an agreement "ADD ON"/ADDENDUM, with out said "ADD ON"/ADDENDUM the license is merely only a script to the "Main Act" that currently has no stage - but is overflowing with characters.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the purpose of facilitating JBI’s use of the License Area, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, RockTenn hereby grants to JBI an exclusive license, that may not be terminated until the earlier of the expiration of the Term as described in an Agreement ADD ON or earlier termination of this Agreement provided herein, to operate the AST System, the Pad, the Steel Shed, Plastic Feedstock from any RockTenn Facility covered by an Agreement ADD ON,any RockTenn Facility landfill covered by an Agreement ADD ON and the JBI Machines for the sole purpose of producing Fuel."
To those with their eyes open, the agreement already signed was the main act. What follows is just the details.
Peace
All contingent upon signing a Agreement Addendum per site....period.
" For the purpose of facilitating JBI’s use of the License Area, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, RockTenn hereby grants to JBI an exclusive license, that may not be terminated until the earlier of the expiration of the Term as described in an Agreement Addendum or earlier termination of this Agreement provided herein, to operate the AST System, the Pad, the Steel Shed, Plastic Feedstock from any RockTenn Facility covered by an Agreement Addendum,any RockTenn Facility landfill covered by an Agreement Addendum and the JBI Machines for the sole purpose of producing Fuel."
Here is a list of what NYSE: RKT approved as EXCLUSIVE. Pay particular attention to the bold:
In accordance with the terms and provisions of the Agreement, JBI has an exclusive 10-year license to the following:
1. Build and operate Plastic2Oil processors at RockTenn facilities. covered by an Agreement Addendum
2. Process RockTenn's waste plastic from paper mills and material recovery facilities (MRF). covered by an Agreement Addendum
3. Mine and process plastic feedstock from plastic-filled monofill sites. covered by an Agreement Addendum
Currently JBI has no Agreement Addendum.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate, some men you just can't reach"
One line item, your off by a few or more.
The following is a summary of the restatements for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, just keeping it real:
Write off of previously recorded media credits $ (1,000,000)
Decrease in income due to change in acquisition accounting for Pak-It (1,616,600)
Decrease in income due to change in acquisition accounting for Javaco (596,213)
Decrease in income due to change in acquisition accounting for John Bordynuik, Inc. (126,569)
Decrease in operating expenses due to change in acquisition accounting 1,256,983
Increase in net interest expense due to change in acquisition accounting (141,468)
Increase in other income due to change in acquisition accounting 45,110
Increase in net income from reclassifications and timing corrections 1,068,323
Total reduction in September 30, 2009 net earnings $ (1,110,434)
Decrease in the valuation of media credits $ (9,997,134)
Decrease in the value of assets acquired from John Bordynuik, Inc. (572,102)
Decrease in the value of goodwill and other assets recorded in conjunction with the acquisition of Javaco and Pak-It (2,360,990)
Decrease in assets from other adjustments (256,432)
Total reduction in September 30, 2009 total assets $(13,186,657)
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010004885/f10q0909a1_jbi.htm
The unreliability, as you know, referred to the 10K report and was limited to one line item.
Unusual to say the least, but after the help of others and Scion it made more sense. I always thought the purchase price of 130k for a facility that originally cost 3 million to outfit was suspect. Then JBI hired Collins as senior VP for a undisclosed sum, and it started to add up. When Collins was hired all his field experience was listed, other than the fact that he once ran the very facility he was just hired to run - into the ground!
Now were learning "The blending site has not purchased,sold, or blended any fuel to date." a year and a half later - from the CEO himself.
To: scion who wrote (4160) 12/23/2010 8:02:21 AM
From: SteveF Read Replies (2) of 12806
Do I have this correct? JB's aunt Joyce and Glenn Robbins live together and share the alias "2bigcats", posting about the stock for a year or so. Colin Robbins (who posts as "terryels" on iHub and is Glenn's son), took over the fuel-blending site from his father and ran it into the ground such that Glenn sold it to JB, who pays for the facility and it's renovationm with JBII shareholder $$$, then hires back Colin to run it?
What could possibly go wrong?
How on earth can anybody defend this? It's a joke now
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=27045291
2bigcats Share Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:16:20 PM
Re: ergo sum post# 59450 Post # of 84693
nope...just Glenn to you...2 people can use the same computer
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52546128
2bigcats Share Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:43:18 PM
Re: None Post # of 84694
Hi Everyone:
The Bordyunik family, Glenn and I want to thank all of the wonderful people that we had met this weekend. The family have a better understanding why you people were very instramental in helping keep JBI the way it is today.(For the dark side I don't mean pumping) Most of you have seen this baby from birth and watched JBI grow through bad times and good times.
She has grown out of the exploration and experimental stage to one producing a product, which is saleable and in demand.
Thank you again
Joyce & Glenn
PS RECYCLE RECYCLE RECYCLE PLASTIC
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49410773
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
JBI Inc. Announces the Appointment of John Colin Robbins as Senior Vice President
THOROLD, Ontario, Dec. 22, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- JBI, Inc. (JBI) (OTCQX:JBII) announces the appointment of John Colin Robbins as JBI's new Senior Vice President. In his new role, Mr. Robbins will solely be responsible for developing and leading the petroleum potential of the Plastic2Oil (P2O) initiative.
"I am pleased to welcome Mr. Robbins as the Senior Vice President of JBI Inc.," said President and CEO John Bordynuik. "As a member of the Senior Team, Mr. Robbins will build the petroleum team to enable our P2O products to be enhanced and distributed. His proficiency in petroleum products blending and strong leadership will be invaluable assets to our company's commercial growth and contribute to JBI's movement toward environmental sustainability."
Mr. Robbins brings more than 30 years of knowledge and expertise in operations, marketing, and manufacturing of renewable fuels to this key post. He specializes in the blending of ethanol, bio-diesel, butane, and petroleum. He has been engaged in the petroleum and bio-fuels industry in a leadership capacity since 1989 with experience extending across North America--but he is most passionate about producing a profitable, environmentally responsible energy product.
"I am honored to undertake this position within JBI, an innovative company, and (I) am eager to embark upon new challenges--especially those that foster green energy initiatives," stated Robbins. "My intent is to develop products that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and how we define plastics recycling."
Prior to joining JBI, he was most recently employed by Sunoco Partners Butane Blending LLC as Manager for Engineering, Construction, and Operations where he successfully led three departments that designed, built, and maintained multiple new butane injection systems in gasoline transfer terminals throughout the United States. He acted as both the General Manager and Director for Engineering, Construction, and Operations at Texon LP from 2007 until 2010. At Texon, Robbins led the engineering team to re-design the butane blending systems, which resulted in substantial increase in revenue growth. He has been an active member of various petroleum boards and associations, including: Environmental Director of the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association's Board of Directors from 1995-2000, a member of the Ontario Petroleum Council from 2003-2004 and Ontario Gasoline Handing Code from 2002-2003, and served on the Canadian Federal Government Legislative Boards on Sulphur in Gasoline in 2001 and Benzene in Gasoline in 1999. He was a recipient of a National Research Council Grant awarded in Canada. Mr. Robbins holds an Honours Bachelor of Science in geology from Brock University.The appointment is effective immediately.
"after we get a few more processors running"
Since the blending site in Niagara will more than likely only be blending fuel made from the Niagara processing plant, this can only mean that processor number 2 and 3 are still not operating.
How much longer is it going to take, it's been almost a year since they were given permission to build processor number two?
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
How about the video John Zervas said was being made months ago?
apvermee Share Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:09:26 PM
Re: None Post # of 135343
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your inquiry and yoursupport for JBI, Inc. The company will not be posting the AGM video, but will bemaking a corporate promotional video out of some of the AGM footage.
Please note that our company page on OTC Markets, www.otcmarkets.com/stock/JBII/news,contains information that we have provided to the public. We update thatinformation on a regular basis. Please check this page on the OTC Marketswebsite for these updates. In addition to these periodic communications, we mayhold conference calls or other communications, such as webcasts or Web sitepostings on our website, http://www.plastic2oil.com/, in which wemay disclose new developments regarding our business and operations. Pleasecheck our website regularly for announcements of upcoming publiccommunications.
We are stewards of our shareholders' investments and we take thatresponsibility very seriously. We are committed to increasing long-termshareholder value.
Thank you and regards,
John Zervas
JBI, Inc. Investor Relations
877-307-7067
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64744277&txt2find=promotional
Pictures? How about a video from NYSE: RKT instead?
I asked you where it was reported that they were giving away tankers for free....just asking?
In none of the notes that I can remember from the shareholders meeting by all the posters who went and reported yourself including, did any of them speak about giving away tankers full of fuel for FREE for testing/sampling. I only remember reading the notes that companies were testing, but no mention of [b]FREE tankers ever, why is that?
Maybe you can point out/link just one attendee's notes including your own that speaks to tankers being given away for free/testing?
Is it possible you also heard this from the camera man?
Or direct us to any link on the companies website that speaks to giving away tankers of fuel for FREE.
John Zervas the 400,000 dollar man lying?
stockman478 Share Friday, July 29, 2011 1:28:42 PM
Re: Steady_T post# 124580 Post # of 135206
hi fellow jbii longs. long time since i've posted. it's usually when lots of banter back and forth between longs and bashers. last time i posted is when there were questions regarding the permits. i ( along with LTG and others) actually called and spoke to david denk and he confirmed that the DEC saw and loved the process.it has since been proven that the longs were correct and the permits has since been issued.
now then i asked him if we gave them one gallon and it worked, then why the need for 200 gallons? he said they use them for different testing and processing. i didn't argue and accepted that. i also asked if we "gave" them or " charged" them. we do indeed give them the fuel to test. he said that's what is necessary to attain their business. to me, i think it's a kick in the bucket and if we do get these customers, these 200 gallons will be nothing compared to the tons they will be buying going forward.imo, smart/good business. i am posting because i just got off the phone with john zervas in IR. I inquired about the aforementioned "dozens of potential customers". not only did he confirm that we do indeed have dozens of potential customers, but we are "IN THE PROCESS OF AQUIRING CUSTOMERS". of course i asked for a time frame but we all know how vague IR can be. he just said we were very close. i also asked about the amount of fuel we were giving these potential customers. he said they start with one gallon and then 200 gallons. ( i believe it's been alledged on here that 3-5000 gallons were used for the testing.if so, that's not the case.
on another note, i also asked about the potential of going on a higher exchange.( tsx,nasdaq or nyse.of course he told me that JB definitely wants to uplist but the company feels now is not the time. they want to wait until they continue to establish more long term customers and generate more revenue. with what's going on with jbii right now (too much of the unknown due to silence regarding the 2nd processor )( which btw, he told me they are "very close"),sales, JV'S, etc). as much as we all want to uplist to another exchange, i'd have to agree right now is not the right time. i do however do believe there will be a right time and when that happens, that will mean we will have more customers, jv's and making a ton of money. it's been a long time coming but i definitely believe our time will come.. and soon! we have waited for a longer time than expected for JBII to do it's thing but when we do, there will be a lot of WEEEEEEEEE'S and BOOYAAAAAA'S out there. ok. i'm done writing this book.if anyone took the time to read all of it ( sorry for blabbing) you can believe what i wrote or not. i did speak to john zervas and that is what he told me. btw, i won't be taking any question from any bashers. i was being honest when i told you what david denk ( from DEC) told me and i'm telling the truth now. i'm just pissed that i don't have any dry powder because like a fool, i put the rest of my liquid money when the announcement came out for permits finally being issued. once again, patience is a virtue but in the end, i think it will pay off quite handsomely. ok. that's my post for the year. lol..... good luck my fellow longs and GO JBII !!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65695486
Full tankers are not given away for testing according to IR John Zervas, IR surely wouldn't give out false material information.
While they may give away the first 1-2 gallons, and then 200 gallons more following the first tests for more additional testing, they certainly wouldn't give away full $23k tankers away for free - after selling a tanker to OXY, and especially when they know that the first two rounds of initial testing passed with flying colors.
Jonny Boy Genius is certainly smarter than that, and it doesn't fit in with the OXY sale, or common logic.
I can see the scenerio you want to paint, no inventory as it's used for testing, and no sales as it's given away for free.
But we both know better.
i just got off the phone with john zervas in IR. I inquired about the aforementioned "dozens of potential customers". not only did he confirm that we do indeed have dozens of potential customers, but we are "IN THE PROCESS OF AQUIRING CUSTOMERS". of course i asked for a time frame but we all know how vague IR can be. he just said we were very close. i also asked about the amount of fuel we were giving these potential customers. he said they start with one gallon and then 200 gallons. ( i believe it's been alledged on here that 3-5000 gallons were used for the testing.if so, that's not the case. then i asked him if we gave them one gallon and it worked, then why the need for 200 gallons? he said they use them for different testing and processing. i didn't argue and accepted that. i also asked if we "gave" them or " charged" them. we do indeed give them the fuel to test. he said that's what is necessary to attain their business.
Rawnoc Share Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:33:08 PM
Re: snow post# 135139 Post # of 135207
Correct. Full tankers (214 barrels) of fuel are given out for testing. Which is also why it's laughable to claim the gross PROFIT margins of last quarter are to be expected forever. They included production given away for free to, for example, NYSE: OXY and Coco Paving before in preparation for future sales. There will be more free samples given away in Q3 while securing large fuel supply contracts.
Found it.
That claim was de-bunked by someone that called the company.
stockman478 Share Friday, July 29, 2011 1:28:42 PM
Re: Steady_T post# 124580 Post # of 135206
hi fellow jbii longs. long time since i've posted. it's usually when lots of banter back and forth between longs and bashers. last time i posted is when there were questions regarding the permits. i ( along with LTG and others) actually called and spoke to david denk and he confirmed that the DEC saw and loved the process.it has since been proven that the longs were correct and the permits has since been issued.
now i am posting because i just got off the phone with john zervas in IR. I inquired about the aforementioned "dozens of potential customers". not only did he confirm that we do indeed have dozens of potential customers, but we are "IN THE PROCESS OF AQUIRING CUSTOMERS". of course i asked for a time frame but we all know how vague IR can be. he just said we were very close. i also asked about the amount of fuel we were giving these potential customers. he said they start with one gallon and then 200 gallons. ( i believe it's been alledged on here that 3-5000 gallons were used for the testing.if so, that's not the case. then i asked him if we gave them one gallon and it worked, then why the need for 200 gallons? he said they use them for different testing and processing. i didn't argue and accepted that. i also asked if we "gave" them or " charged" them. we do indeed give them the fuel to test. he said that's what is necessary to attain their business. to me, i think it's a kick in the bucket and if we do get these customers, these 200 gallons will be nothing compared to the tons they will be buying going forward.imo, smart/good business.
on another note, i also asked about the potential of going on a higher exchange.( tsx,nasdaq or nyse.of course he told me that JB definitely wants to uplist but the company feels now is not the time. they want to wait until they continue to establish more long term customers and generate more revenue. with what's going on with jbii right now (too much of the unknown due to silence regarding the 2nd processor )( which btw, he told me they are "very close"),sales, JV'S, etc). as much as we all want to uplist to another exchange, i'd have to agree right now is not the right time. i do however do believe there will be a right time and when that happens, that will mean we will have more customers, jv's and making a ton of money. it's been a long time coming but i definitely believe our time will come.. and soon! we have waited for a longer time than expected for JBII to do it's thing but when we do, there will be a lot of WEEEEEEEEE'S and BOOYAAAAAA'S out there. ok. i'm done writing this book.if anyone took the time to read all of it ( sorry for blabbing) you can believe what i wrote or not. i did speak to john zervas and that is what he told me. btw, i won't be taking any question from any bashers. i was being honest when i told you what david denk ( from DEC) told me and i'm telling the truth now. i'm just pissed that i don't have any dry powder because like a fool, i put the rest of my liquid money when the announcement came out for permits finally being issued. once again, patience is a virtue but in the end, i think it will pay off quite handsomely. ok. that's my post for the year. lol..... good luck my fellow longs and GO JBII !!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65695486
If revenues are only 100k, it's a massive disapointment. JBI had revenues of 81k in the P2O segment last quarter, with up to 24k possibly coming from Coco.
JBI INC will start providing a Petroleum Distillate product to Coca Asphalt Engineering- A division of Coco Paving, to be used in it's manufacturing division ( emulsion ) starting June 10th. 2011, at a discount price of $0.69/litre for a one (1) year period with first option of renewal and purchased solely on Coco's approved weekly/biweekly/monthly demand basis.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003196/f8k061011ex10i_jbi.htm
According to some here this deal is worth approx 8k per week, in and of itself would be 100k per quarter. If they sold three weeks worth in the 2nd quarter that would leave approx 57k made by the paper/plastic recycling division that P20 is rolled into with.
So, anything less then 157k in the P2O segment, will mean that somethings gone horribly wrong with securing any new sales - OXY who?
And one would then have to question what went wrong with the dozens of new companies reportedly testing the fuel.
If revenues are only 100,000 dollars I will be disappointed but it will not in itself have any big impact on my confidence in management.
You can't have it both ways.
First you say:
(1) "P2O segment already showing a gross profit despite the small sales! ($23,380 in gross profit on sales of $81,101 for the P2O segment)If P2O sales can be profitable right out of the gate when tiny, just imagine how profitable P2O will be as sales multiply?"
Then you say:
"You're unfairly including the salaries of at least 5 workers at the recycling plant."
So let me get this straight you want to include the gross profit made from the 5 workers at the recycling plant, and not include the cost of the 5 men.....things that make you go hmmm??
It's interesting in the 10Q how the cardboard/plastic recycling is merged with the plastic to oil division. That way one can't truly see the true gross profit seperatley, more fuzzy math.
It's also quite possible the only gross profit at all in the P2O segment is derived solely from the 5 men sorting/recycling cardboards and plastics there.
Time will tell.
It's right there on the side of the mythical Data patent...how could you have missed it...lol
Is someone claiming that JBII has applied for /has a patent for their P2O process? That's easily searchable even if it's only an application. That's great news! Funny tho.. can't seem to locate it on the US Patent website..
I don't know maybe it had a gold plated throne?
Maybe he just over paid like he did with Javaco, Pak-it and the tape equipment he sold to his self, and later needed to restate.
In the greatest Real Estate buyers market possibly since the great depression, Honest John only paid twice the value of the Niagara falls plant, when the area is littered with empty buildings....hmmm
Johnny Boy Genius paid 401k for a property worth 185K - a whooping 125% premium. Maybe his buddy owned it, or maybe the load of plastic cups by the bubbler got him excited?
** Commercial Property **
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Current Owner Name JBI RE #1 INC
Property Address 20 IROQUOIS ST
Town Name Niagara Falls
Total Assessed Value (94% of Market Value) $169,800
Full Market Value $180,600 Land Assessed Value $51,400
Property Type 449 - Warehouse
Lot Size Acres: 3.37
What the heck it's only shareholders money, and he can always print more.
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/subject.asp?swis=291100&sbl=1600130001008000
http://www.oarsystem.com/ny/niagarafalls/photos/T000115/2911001600130001008000%20%20%20%200001.JPG
In March 2011, the Company purchased the Niagara Falls Facility, which houses the Company’s Plastic2Oil operations.
The total purchase price for the property was $401,979 which is payable $26,979 in shares, $216,832 by way of a promissory note and the remaining in cash.
The promissory note bears interest at a rate of 0% per annum, and 5% per annum interest on the balance due if the Company is in default of repayment which is due on October 4, 2011.
The Company had made a deposit of $100,000 at December 31, 2010 for the purchase of this facility.
Let's not forget that you said you had the Data patent number, the very one that's so great - it's not even mentioned in the latest 10Q...hmmm
The Data patent was nothing more than another slight of hand - now you see it now you don't. I wonder what else he has up his sleave and what will vanish next?
Is a data patent material to JBII? You said you knew for a fact they had one and even had the patent number. But the company did not mention it in their latest 10Q? But yet they mentioned the PakIt patents. Thoughts?
CORRESP 1 filename1.htm
July 18, 2011
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC
20549
Attn: Jeff Jaramillo, Accounting Branch Chief
Re: File No. 000-52444
Dear Mr. Jaramillo;
In response to your letter dated June 21, 2011 with respect to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed on April 20, 2011 we submit our responses below. Also, as requested, we wish to acknowledge that:
· the Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
· staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking action with respect to the filing; and
· the Company may not assert staff comments as a defence in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under federal securities laws of the United States.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary data, page F-1
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, page F-8
Note 4 – Prior Period Restatement, page F-15
Comment 1
We retained the services of an independent valuator to render an opinion as to the fair value, for US GAAP reporting purposes, of the identified intangible assets acquired in the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It, which occurred in August and September 2009, respectively. The valuator applied generally accepted approaches to the valuation of specific intangible assets and their engagement was designed to provide effective audit evidence. The valuator’s reports are dated March 29, 2011.
Upon receipt of the valuator’s reports the Company consulted with the auditing firm that completed an audit of, and rendered an unqualified opinion on, the Company’s financial statements as at December 31, 2009. These December 31, 2009 financial statements had been prepared using the Company’s best estimates as to the allocation of the purchase prices paid in connection with each of the business acquisitions. It was the opinion of the Company and the audit firm that the 2009 10K, and the audited financial statements contained therein, did not specifically require restatement on the basis that the amounts and disclosures that would have been incorporated therein, had the valuation reports been issued earlier, were not material. By extension, there was no determination that the previously filed financial statements should not be relied upon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Re: File No. 000-52444
July 14, 2011
Page 2 of 3
At the time the Valuator’s reports were received the audit of the Company’s December 31, 2010 financial statements was in process. This audit was being conducted by the Company’s new audit firm, which was not the same firm that rendered an audit opinion on the Company’s December 31, 2009 financial statements. The Company determined that this new information, regarding the allocation of the purchase price paid for each of the business combinations, should be reflected in its accounting records. The Company also determined that the most appropriate way to reflect this new information was by way of retroactive adjustment to the date of acquisition. The Company’s auditors examined this presentation and effectively concurred with the presentation and disclosures as indicated by the unqualified audit opinion they rendered on the December 31, 2010 financial statements.
Comment 2
The Company retained the services of an independent valuator to render their opinion as to the fair value, for US GAAP reporting purposes, of the identified intangible assets acquired in the acquisitions of both Javaco and Pak-It. Upon receipt of the valuator’s reports we determined that it was appropriate, in each case, to adjust the values attributed to the identified intangible assets based upon this new information. We then determined that the most informative financial statement disclosure was achieved by providing insight as to the source of the new information obtained and accordingly stated that the correction was “based upon the purchase price allocation as determined by independent third party appraisals”. Aside from this specific reference the Form 10-K as filed by the Company, including the financial statements contained therein, did not name the independent valuator or incorporate any quotes or statements contained within the report obtained from the independent valuator.
The scope of the engagement of the third party appraiser was limited to the rendering of an opinion as to the fair value, for US GAAP reporting purposes, of the identified intangible assets obtained in conjunction with the acquisition of both Javaco and Pak-It. The intent of each engagement was to obtain a report from the appraiser that constituted effective audit evidence. So far as management was, and continues to be aware, the third party appraiser was independent of the Company and was qualified to conduct such an engagement. In the opinion of the Company’s management, there was nothing that arose during this engagement, or cited within the report prepared by the appraiser for management and its auditors, that suggested that the engagement scope was impaired in any manner, that the engagement objective was not achieved, that the resulting report did not constitute effective audit evidence, or that the fair value opinion should not be relied upon. Consequently, the Company adjusted the carrying value of the identified intangible assets, as at the respective dates of acquisition of both Javaco and Pak-It, based upon the fair values cited in the reports rendered by the independent appraisers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Re: File No. 000-52444
July 14, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Question 141.02 of the Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations on Securities Act Sections addresses the situation where a registrant has engaged a third party expert to assist in determining the fair values of certain assets or liabilities disclosed in the registrant’s Securities Act registration statement and the circumstances in which the Company must disclose the name of the third party expert, and obtain the third party’s consent to be named, in the registration statement. The response to the question states that “The registrant has no requirement to make reference to a third party expert simply because the registrant used or relied on the third party expert’s report or valuation or opinion…” and then states “The consent requirement in Securities Act section 7(a) applies only when a report, valuation or opinion of an expert is included or summarized in the registration statement…”. The Company acknowledges that it relied upon the fair value opinions rendered by the third party expert but that, in itself, does not necessitate the naming of the third party expert in the financial statements as at December 31, 2010, the Form 10K as at the same date, or any registration statement that may be issued subsequently that makes reference to these documents.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures, page 57
Comment 3
You have indicated that you do not see where we have disclosed management’s conclusion on the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures at December 31, 2010. You have further requested that we amend our filing to include such disclosures in accordance with Item 307 of regulation S-K.
Item 9A has been updated to disclose that the principal executive officer and the principal financial officer’s conclusion that the disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective as of December 31, 2010.
Comment 4
You have requested that we amend our filing to include a statement concluding on whether our internal control over financial reporting was effective or not effective as of December 31, 2010 as required by Item 308 (a)(3) of Regulation S-K.
Item 9A has been revised to disclose that management’s internal control was not effective as of December 31, 2010
Yours truly,
/s/ John Bordynuik
John Bordynuik
Chairman and CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003734/filename1.htm
More delays/excuses on processor's number two and three,sales, contract addendum agreements, while maintaining steady progress on dilution/pipes.
Anybody care to say what their predictions are????
That post is not strange at all, what's strange is you digging up a old post in which everything in it - at the time it was written was true to the best of my knowledge, and a post that has nothing to do with the current topic.
What's also strange is your attempt to change the current subject - you know the one about how honest John is pounding the table of no more shredding plastic, yet not even a whimper about any possible increased throughput.
What do you think the next JBI delay will be, how far is the carrot still?
We disagree, the fact that he never mentioned any throughput gains, after pounding the table that he no longer has to shred plastic, is illogical at best.
John the stock salesman with his past record would never miss the opportunity to pat himself on the back and boast of increased throughput given the chance, unless of course the SEC was watching and there truly was no meaningful throughput gains by adding a premelt.
Like I said earlier, the newest delay will be having to rebuild the backend of the processor, to keep up with the new and improved frontend. Maybe at that point he will pound the table about the massive gains everyone can expect in the throughput, you know the never reachable carrot story, goes on and on.
I made it clear that I could care less whether JB ever used the phrase because it has no logical impact on the overall point being argued about. Simple as that
Negative, you forgot to read the rest of that sentence.
This premelt system will maximize production at third party facilities (i.e. paper mills or MRF sites) and other waste stream sites by allowing minimal handling of feedstock
"Maximize production by allowing minimum handling"
It doesn't read - maximize production by increasing throughput, but you already knew that.
Just keeping it real.