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 prefer to go with what was said, "without shredding or granulating the feedstock", "by allowing minimal handling of feedstock" "to eliminate handling, shredding, and bagging of waste plastic", "are loaded whole into the premelt reactor thereby eliminating shredding and much handling".
The only efficiencies mentioned are regarding handling/shredding/bagging - the rest is pure hype/speculation.
If John had massively increased the throughput via the premelt as claimed on this board, don't you think he would have mentioned that fact?
Because he increased the input, does not guarantee a massively greater output. The backend may already be running at full capacity.
I can increase the fuel input into my truck gas tank simply by using a 10" wide hose rather than a 1" wide hose, a remarkable 1000% increase of input, yet this doesn't automatically mean the output to my engine will be any faster/greater and my truck will be 1000% faster.....lol
I think we've discovered the next big delay, he will now rebuild the backend of the processors to increase throughput.
The fact that he didn't mention throughput gains is telling.
Again, not one mention of greater throughput...PERIOD.
Just keeping it real.
(6) "the Company also designed and has nearly completed manufacturing of a premelt system to allow waste plastic to enter the processor whole in bale form, or in large pieces (e.g. gas tanks, bumpers) without shredding or granulating the feedstock. 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. Management’s highest priority is bringing modular processor #2 and 3 online so the Company can become cash flow positive"
"During the second quarter of 2011 the Company designed and engineered a premelt loader for the Plastic2Oil processor to eliminate handling, shredding, and bagging of waste plastic. With the premelt loader, bales or supersacks of plastic are set on a conveyor and then are loaded whole into the premelt reactor thereby eliminating shredding and much handling. During the modularization of the processor, the CEO was able to eliminate the off gas compression system in favor of a simplified low-cost off gas handling rack (4’ x 4’ x 4’) for better control and at 1/5 of the cost. The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader."
I'm sure if massive gains were true than John certainly would have screamed that info from the highest mountain. Instead he left message board posters to say it for him. So the silence by John on any throughput gains speaks to the gains, if any at all - of not being of a material nature.
The problem with John is he's always painting the prettiest picture with words, unfortunately - it's with invisible paint.
The premelt is probably just another delay/excuse, in a long list of - delay after delay, and excuse after excuse.
Not one mention of throughput gains by John ever, not one PERIOD.
Just keeping it real.
(6) "the Company also designed and has nearly completed manufacturing of a premelt system to allow waste plastic to enter the processor whole in bale form, or in large pieces (e.g. gas tanks, bumpers) without shredding or granulating the feedstock. 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. Management’s highest priority is bringing modular processor #2 and 3 online so the Company can become cash flow positive"
"During the second quarter of 2011 the Company designed and engineered a premelt loader for the Plastic2Oil processor to eliminate handling, shredding, and bagging of waste plastic. With the premelt loader, bales or supersacks of plastic are set on a conveyor and then are loaded whole into the premelt reactor thereby eliminating shredding and much handling. During the modularization of the processor, the CEO was able to eliminate the off gas compression system in favor of a simplified low-cost off gas handling rack (4’ x 4’ x 4’) for better control and at 1/5 of the cost. The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader."
Where did John ever say this would increase throughput?
Increased throughput is nothing more than pure hype and message board speculation. What John did say is it would allow less handling/shredding. He never mentioned any increased throughput at all ever.
Just keeping it real.
(6) "the Company also designed and has nearly completed manufacturing of a premelt system to allow waste plastic to enter the processor whole in bale form, or in large pieces (e.g. gas tanks, bumpers) without shredding or granulating the feedstock.
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. Management’s highest priority is bringing modular processor #2 and 3 online so the Company can become cash flow positive"
"During the second quarter of 2011 the Company designed and engineered a premelt loader for the Plastic2Oil processor to eliminate handling, shredding, and bagging of waste plastic. With the premelt loader, bales or supersacks of plastic are set on a conveyor and then are loaded whole into the premelt reactor thereby eliminating shredding and much handling. During the modularization of the processor, the CEO was able to eliminate the off gas compression system in favor of a simplified low-cost off gas handling rack (4’ x 4’ x 4’) for better control and at 1/5 of the cost. The cost savings through modularization has been used to offset the cost of the premelt loader."
Do you have a link for that info, or maybe you've seen the premelt?
The premelt also is a very simple aparatus v the processor. Less maitanance and lower cost.
Dead wrong again, maybe you can add some color as to how they're all related to Media credits.
Your statement that only "ONE" issue has been restated is pure fiction and patently false as you very well know.
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
Yes. All relating to ONE thing.......et z
Your statement that only "ONE" issue has been restated is pure fiction and patently false as you very well know.
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
Only ONE issue has been restated. Media Credits. As you very well know.......z
Credibility, that's why.
"JBI has a patent related to its Data Business, for the recovery of tape information. Also, JBI is in the process of filing 5 separate patents for its Plastic2Oil Processor."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003733/f10k2010a1_jbi.htm
This patent doesn't show up under any searches under John's name or the company's name...
Why would anyone waste so much
time talking about a patent? I don't get it?
This patent must be a real POS for you not to be posting the complete patent number, or it truly doesn't exist - one or the other.
I called after the ridiculous discussion then, got the patent number, and was satisfied and decided not to post it and stir it up again.
I know, it makes for a lousy conspiracy theory. Especially since I'm staring at the patent number right now as I type to you.
Last digit of the patent number that you insist doesn't exist and that I'm lying about is a 6.
Want to guess the rest of the digits?
Since JB never assigned the patent to the company as you've pointed out, then it's possible that he licensed the company to act as a agent to sell or license the patent to others, and if "they/he" were successful in securing other licenses - he would receive extra consideration.
I agree that there could be several licensings, but not multiple assignments, and I also believe your spot on with "the obligation to pay the maintenance fees was JB's, not the company's"
In an earlier post I indicated that the radiation patent listing indicated that that patent had not been assigned. Is that your understanding? Because my interpretation of the filings that you found is that JB LICENSED the patent to his company, which I don't believe is the same thing as an assignment. There could be multiple licensings, but not multiple assignments, no?
"This patent that they paid John $176,960, was so great they let it expire. Another fantastic Arms Length transaction to himself!!"
I'm right with you on this, assuming that the "they" is really "he". If the above assignment understanding is correct, the obligation to pay the maintenance fees was JB's, not the company's.
The issue becomes further confused by this:
"In addition to the consideration outlined above, in the event the Company sells, or licenses any part of the license for US PATENT # 7,115,872 Portable Radiation Detector and Method of Detecting Radiation consideration of 10% of any licensing fee and 15% of any research and development funding will be paid to John Bordynuik."
If all he did was license the use of the patent to the company then the company certainly couldn't sell the license.
I'm confused. I guess that's what happens when one tries to understand the agreements that someone makes with himself.
After spending almost 200k with shareholders money to himself, you would think he would renew such a patent for the small maitenance fees involved.
Wait a minute, why bother he got what he wanted...just keeping it real.
Patent Maintenance Fees
1551/2551 1.20(e) Due at 3.5 years
FEE 980.00
Small Entity FEE (if applicable) 490.00
www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm
United States PATENT 7,115,872 Bordynuik October 3, 2006
Portable radiation detector and method of detecting radiation
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fne...
Assignments on the Web > PATENT Query
Assignment Data Not Available
For PATENT Number: 7115872
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=pat&reel=&frame=&pat=7115872&am...
PATENT Agreement
Effective October 7, 2006 the Company entered into an agreement to license a PATENT to license a PATENT for portable radiation detector from John Bordynuik. This agreement includes the license for US PATENT #7,115,872 Portable Radiation Detector and Method of Detecting Radiation. Consideration paid by the Company to John Bordynuik included a one time $176,960. In addition, consideration of 6,000 shares of the Company common stock will also be paid to John Bordynuik and will be held in trust for John Bordynuik’s children.
In addition to the consideration outlined above, in the event the Company sells, or licenses any part of the license for US PATENT # 7,115,872 Portable Radiation Detector and Method of Detecting Radiation consideration of 10% of any licensing fee and 15% of any research and development funding will be paid to John Bordynuik.
Expedite 2 Inc · 8-K · For 2/10/09 · EX-99.1
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1415602/000121390009000261/f8k021009ex99i_expedite2.htm
PATENT Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362
First Named Inventor: John William Bordynuik , Ontario, (CA) Issue Date of Patent: 10-03-2006
7115872
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3h3cz9XEzcPIwMLvyALA08....
United States PATENT 7,115,872
Bordynuik October 3, 2006
Portable RADIATION detector and method of detecting RADIATION
Courtesy of Scion on SI
This patent that they paid John $176,960, was so great they let it expire. Another fantastic Arms Length transaction to himself!!
It's also possible he let another worthless data patent expire..lol
Wow, that's one ugly daily candle. I'm glad I'm out for now, as it never hurts to take profits.
The Wells notice sure put a lid on any sustained buying, looks like there was lots of profit taking today. The good news is 1.70 should be the new floor.
Nothing wrong with trading, it's far from criminal...lol
I bought in yesterday, after missing the 8k by 15 or so minutes. Great news and deal for Rock Tenn and JBI. The stock should test the 4 area sometime probably next week.
Jbi has been taking applications for years, with nothing to show for it.
Your right, you can't stop something that's not even moving.
cant stop this train....lol
10KA filing date 7/18/2011
We have designed our P2O processors to take up approximately 1,000 square feet of space (for processors with up to a 20 MT capacity), giving the processors a small footprint. This facilitates the construction of multiple processor sites. We estimate that the costs of constructing our initial P2O processors on industrial partner sites will be in the range of $400,000 to $900,000Page 8 section 3
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003733/f10k2010a1_jbi.htm
So now that the footprint has doubled to 2000sq' perhaps the cost has doubled as well.
What's more interesting is Honest John filed the 10KA on 7/18/11 two weeks after he told Brigg on 7/7/11 via a phone call that the footprint had been increased to 2000sq'.
So he tells Brigg on 7/7/11 that the footprint is now 2000sq' and then files with the SEC 11 days later that the footprint is approximately 1000sq'.
It appears Honest John has a real problem with being honest.
BRIG_88 Share Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:39:13 PM
Re: Artiztic1 post# 118029 Post # of 125696
WELL WELL!!! I just called the company and John answered the phone. He's working late and i couldn't believe i got him. You are CORRECT. The machine will not fit in a 1000 sq foot space any longer. It did at one point. He told me there have been so many changes and improvements it has expanded to 2000 square feet, He also told me there are additional changes that reduce space requirements for multiple processors installed at a single location. He wouldn't give me details. I asked if this would be an issue for JBII expansion or an issue for JV's he's working on. His response? Nobody cares. There's your answer straight from the man.....more space....nobody cares....dead issue.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64981724
And yet, the website still claims 1000sq' footprint:
Our processor footprint requires only about 1000 square feet and costs a small fraction of what other companies currently offer
http://www.plastic2oil.com/
$500k processor is complete fiction, just like the 1000sq' footprint still plugged on JBI's website.
It's simple JBI's restatements need restatements.
Yes, and nowhere does it state "accounting errors made by the company". My belief is there's more "valuation of media credits, accounting for acquisitions and equity issuances" that the SEC doesn't like than mere errors.
Over 7 months to build processor number two and they haven't finished it yet...lol
Good thing it's a cookie cutter!
like i said it's a cookie cutter now...build-ship-install-run
Term containing arms length on BusinessDictionary.com
A type of transaction whereby a willing seller and a willing buyer who have no conflicts of interest with regard to the transaction make an agreement ...
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/arms-length-price.html
If Honest John is charged and found guilty of fraud he would be permanently barred from service as an officer or director of a public company, and in the event of wrongdoing, court can break corporate veil ref JBII.
It looks like Honest John has some explaining to do.
Based on information obtained from the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the staff may also recommend naming one or more CURRENT and former OFFICERS of the Company as defendants in the proposed lawsuit.
The CURRENT list of company Officers:
John Bordynuik
President, CEO and Director
John Bordynuik
Chief Financial Officer
Jacob Smith
Chief Operating Officer and Director
Jacob Smith was appointed in 2010 which rules him out for 2009's fraudulent filings.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003733/f10k2010a1_jbi.htm
Currently, the only officer left from the time period in question is Honest John. Maybe, Honest John can explain to the SEC, how one has a arms-length agreement with oneself.
This is an arms-length agreement between the Company and JBI by President and CEO John Bordynuik, who is the majority shareholder in both 310 Holdings and John Bordynuik Inc.
8-K 310 Holdings, Inc - Asset Purchase Agreement - assets of John Bordynuik, Inc. (“JBI”)
Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
On June 25, 2009, 310 Holdings, Inc., (the “Company”) entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) to purchase and assume certain assets of John Bordynuik, Inc. (“JBI”), a Delaware corporation. This is an arms-length agreement between the Company and JBI by President and CEO John Bordynuik, who is the majority shareholder in both 310 Holdings and John Bordynuik Inc.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390009001582/f8k062509_310holdings.htm
Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/f8k071411_jbi.htm
NOTE 3 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND RESTATEMENT
Restatement
The Company has RESTATED its previously issued consolidated financial statements for the period ending September 30, 2009 for matters related to the following previously reported items: (1) the original accounting for the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It, which was improperly recorded as a reverse merger, whereby pre-acquisition operations of the acquired entities were erroneously reflected in the operations as originally reported, and (2) the valuation and subsequent impairment of media credits. The accompanying financial statements for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 have been RESTATED to reflect the corrections. The effect of this RESTATEMENT to the financial statements is a decrease in total assets of approximately $13,187,000, an increase in net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, of approximately $1,110,000 and a decrease in equity of $10,343,000.
The following is a summary of the restatements for the nine months ended September 30, 2009:
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
I'm really curious as to how one has a legal arms-length agreement with oneself.
Term containing arms length on BusinessDictionary.com
A type of transaction whereby a willing seller and a willing buyer who have no conflicts of interest with regard to the transaction make an agreement ...
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/arms-length-price.html
What is a non-arms length transaction?
Most real estate transactions are actually arms length transactions. An arms length transaction in real estate is when you have both a seller and buyer who have no relationship to each other and who act independently of each other. Because of this kind of relationship, it’s safe to assume that this transaction will be fair and equitable to all parties involved.
A non-arms length transaction in a real estate transaction would be between family members or relatives in which there could be some sort of conflict of interest. Meaning that a transaction between a father and son could yield a different result. It could result in a lower sales price than what the market demands. Or that one of the parties involved would be giving back a more than normal concession to help purchase the new home, such as seller concessions.
http://www.fhaloansfhamortgages.com/2011/02/23/nonarms-length-transaction/
What JV in their right mind is going to want to invest 10's of millions on buildouts etc - on a company being investigated for fraud ?
Breaking news JBI makes a JV annoucement!!!
Unfortunately, it's with the SEC.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/f8k071411_jbi.htm
How many other restatements are in JBI's future. It's not just by chance that JBI released a new 10KA 4 days after receiving the Wells Notice.
That said:
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), as of December 31, 2010. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are ineffective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules."
....
These material weaknesses are a result of a lack of policies and procedures, with the associated internal controls, to appropriately address routine transactions, as well as a lack of a sufficient number of qualified personnel to timely account for such transactions in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Management has identified the following groups of control deficiencies, each of which, in the aggregate, represents a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003733/f10k2010a1_jbi.htm
It's much more than a restatemnet issue, EQUITY ISSUANCES as well, and this is just the start of the investigation.
Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/f8k071411_jbi.htm
NOTE 3 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND RESTATEMENT
Restatement
The Company has RESTATED its previously issued consolidated financial statements for the period ending September 30, 2009 for matters related to the following previously reported items: (1) the original accounting for the acquisitions of Javaco and Pak-It, which was improperly recorded as a reverse merger, whereby pre-acquisition operations of the acquired entities were erroneously reflected in the operations as originally reported, and (2) the valuation and subsequent impairment of media credits. The accompanying financial statements for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 have been RESTATED to reflect the corrections. The effect of this RESTATEMENT to the financial statements is a decrease in total assets of approximately $13,187,000, an increase in net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, of approximately $1,110,000 and a decrease in equity of $10,343,000.
The following is a summary of the restatements for the nine months ended September 30, 2009:
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)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010004885/f10q0909a1_jbi.htm
Nah, ongoing investigation. It's not over till it's over.
More investigations coming?
The staff's current concerns could change at any given time, once they start investigating who knows what other questions will be raised.
To the best of the Company’s knowledge, the Enforcement staff’s concerns do not currently encompass matters unrelated to the restatement.
On July 14, 2011, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Enforcement issued a “Wells Notice” to JBI, Inc., ( 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 . Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances. Based on information obtained from the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the staff may also recommend naming one or more current and former officers of the Company as defendants in the proposed lawsuit.
Under the SEC’s procedures, a Wells Notice indicates that the SEC Enforcement staff has decided to recommend instituting litigation, but the Commission itself has not decided whether or not to approve such a recommendation. The Company has the opportunity to respond to the SEC staff before a decision is made whether to take any adverse action. The Company produced a large quantity of documents, and cooperated with the Enforcement staff, with regard to the investigation preceding the Wells Notice.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the dispute with the SEC, including whether a lawsuit will be filed or the terms of any settlement that may be reached. The Company has been given an opportunity to respond to the Wells Notice, and will decide how to proceed based on consultation with its litigation counsel.
To the best of the Company’s knowledge, the Enforcement staff’s concerns do not currently encompass matters unrelated to the restatement. The Company took a number of proactive steps in connection with the restatement, including hiring additional accounting staff members, retaining a reputable, top-30 accounting firm (WithumSmith+Brown) to provide relevant expertise, and upgrading its accounting software. Previously, on May 21, 2010, the Company disclosed that its financial statements for the indicated time periods should no longer be relied upon.
The Company is deeply concerned about the recent significant trading activity and stock price decrease, which were unaccompanied by any Company disclosures during the 48 hours prior to receiving the Wells Notice. The Company was unaware of the notice until shortly prior to its receipt, and members of management did not trade in the Company’s stock during this period.
The Company does not anticipate that the notice will negatively impact its business operations.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits
None
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized
JBI, INC.
Date: July 20, 2011 By: /s/ John Bordynuik
John Bordynuik
Chief Executive Officer
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003788/f8k071411_jbi.htm
The same smart money claiming Rock Tenn would be liable for every contract or agreement signed by SS, regardless of disclosure or the lack of approval after entering the P&S? lol
The SMART money betting on JBI knows better.....perhaps some business lessons are in order...????
Says who you....link?
Exactly. Everybody knows NYSE: RKT themselves were fully aware of the referral agreement and JV negotiations months ago and gave the thumbs up to allow SSCC to keep going.
No Rock Tenn isn't stupid enough to agree to be liable for anything undisclosed or unapproved of...period
They're only liable for agreements that were disclosed/approved prior to signing the P&S, otherwise SS could have signed a lollipop agreement for hundreds of milliions after the P&S.
Even Ray Charles while dead and blind can see ROCK Tenn is smart enough to know better.
Prior to entering any Purchase and Sale contract SS would need to and be legally obligated to disclose all material agreements CURRENTLY in place. Rock Tenn by signing the purchase and sale agreement is therefore agreeing to honor all the disclosed said agreements.
Like I said earlier, the problem lies when after signing said Purchase and Sale agreement, the company being acquired signs other agreements that are not, or were not disclosed or approved by Rock Tenn after signing the P&S. Therefore, as I said earlier Rock Tenn would have a clause in place, as this is not their first dance - speaking directly to no ambush agreements that would survive the acquisition...period
12) Will my current contract be assumed and honored by RockTenn?
Current contracts with Smurfit-Stone will be assumed in connection with acquisition. You will be contacted directly should there be any legal implications associated with the deal closing. We will honor any required contract notifications and will also process change-of-control agreement requirements accordingly.
www.rocktenn.com/about-us/smurfit-stone/supplier-zone/supplier-faq.da#q12
Show me just one quarter where JBI showed a NET profit with Pak it.
How do you know that this is not from restructuring and a single time event? JBII fired a lot of people from Pak-It. That would incur a loss since Pak-It is basically break even after cost of sales is subtracted from revenues.
Correct and I agree, however if this referral agreement was signed after entering escrow and without Rock's knowledge or permission then they don't have to honor squat.
I have purchased businesses and we either live with the contracts in place at time of signing or we buy them out and pay the early terminitation penalty. That is what DD is for to determine what obligations your are purchasing and which ones may have clauses to let you out or them out of the contract. That is how it works in the States anyway. This statement is based on my personal experence only.
They only had a referral/contract with SS, and it remains to be seen if Rock Tenn is interested at all. Rock Tenn has announced no agreements with JBI, and all we have is pure speculation that they're even interested in pursuing one with JBI.
I was under the impression they had a referral agreement with SS. Was there an actual contract involved?
C911
Your dead wrong again.
So some rogue purchasing agent could've signed a contract during escrow and prior to the merger to buy my special lolipops for a million dollars apiece, as fast as a I could produce them for the next 100 years - and Rock Tenn would have to honor that...lol
There would be a clause in the purchasing contract that would speak directly to this.
That's not how the law works. I suggest you call RKT and confirm if all contracts magically disappear from SSCC or not. Contract law doesn't allow for buyouts to null anything. RKT assumed all contracts and liabilities of SSCC.
Rock Tenn is no fool, they are only responsible for anything they agreed to, signed or gave permission for Smurf to sign - prior to the merge, and that's exactly how smart business is done...period
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL -- doesn't work that way.
Not all contracts - just the ones they don't want or didn't approve of. Smurf could've signed a contract without Rocks approval during the merge and that contract wouldn't hold water.
Rock Tenn has signed nothing, therfore they're liable for nothing and they don't have to honor any previous agreements made by Smurf Stone....period
My bad....all contracts are null and void after a merger.
Uh huh. lol lol lo lol
Rock Tenn is interested, wheres the link to that news?
Smurfit Stone was the only link, and they no longer wear the pants. Rock Tenn has announced no referal or any agreements with JBI. How do you even know the agreement between JBI and Smurf survived the merge with Rock Tenn?
I'm pretty such NYSE: RKT is interested in partnering with JBII for their plastic2cash processors