COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

Oh my gosh - I sure hope that the execrable James T. doesn't show up on the guest list again......scandalous, that would be.

Keep an eye out for Tom R., and Robert G. Those guys are shady, too.....

LOL

Is this paragraph specific to PTOI, or is it present in 100s of publicly traded companies' filings? AKA "boilerplate"?

Thanks, Commando. Good to see you're still hanging around.....

That question would have to be put to him - I don't know the answer to that.

Good catch.

Questions for the board:

How many of Mark Ragus's "other" LLCs turned up in the 10K?

THAT was definitely a hot topic of conversation not too long ago.....LOL

Was the "real" James T's identity revealed in the 10K?

THAT was also definitely a hot topic of conversation not too long ago....

Anybody?

In case anyone was wondering whether or not Philip Bradley ran away from this fraud / scam / sinking ship, there's this in the 10K:

I think it might mean he's still around.....

Oh, and I think "Ranjo Banjo" found enough time in between his other gigs to get the K in on time, too....


LOL

Priceless......

No. They obviously didn't forget to file.

May I ask what this amounts to? That JBI / JB pay lead plaintiff's attorney fees and costs?

What are we looking at, dollar wise?

What were the plaintiffs seeking, originally?

Just to be clear: when a company's stock price goes down, it's because of disgorgements? Paid for by shareholders?

Interesting......

BUT NO DISGORGEMENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT



AGAINST BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FUTURE - DOESN'T THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?



TEMPORARY, NOT PERMANENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT

WHY WOULD THE SEC SETTLE FOR SO MUCH LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SOUGHT?

Interesting. Which part?

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

I'm not sure I understand the point - is filing for an extension, for any reason, only done by pyrolysis scams?

Do other publicly-traded companies ever file for extensions on their 10K?

If so, are their excuses lame, too? Or do they offer examples of "non-lame" excuses?

Just trying to keep up.

It will be interesting to see if there are any JV partners announced this year.....

Yes.

Wait......there were PTOI processors on the deck of the Titanic?

WOW!

Was that some sort of "Back To The Future" thing?

Weird! Maybe there's gonna be some sort of "lightning" event here soon......

Ah, Rev....

Let me get this straight: because the SEC never said JBI wasn't a scam, the conclusion to be drawn is that it must be one? Is there a link to that particular interpretation on the SEC website? LOL

Any luck with that other word that appears often in the SEC releases regarding JBI and John Bordynuik:

ALLEGED

Any thoughts on why the SEC settled for so much less than it sought in the original complaint?

It sure was, Rev. Was that word mentioned before, or after, the word "alleged", throughout the settlement document?

What does that word mean, anyway?

ALLEGED

LOL

BUT NO DISGORGEMENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT

AGAINST BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FUTURE - DOESN'T THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

TEMPORARY, NOT PERMANENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT

WHY WOULD THE SEC SETTLE FOR SO MUCH LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SOUGHT?

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

On the scale of hugeness, I would have thought the difference between "Disgorgement of $millions in ill-gotten gains" and "$150,000" was right up there, too. Probably just above the difference between "permanent officer ban" and "5-year officer ban".

Why do you think that the SEC accepted a settlement that was so hugely different from what the original complaint sought?

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

The more germane question, IMO, is:

From .09 to ???? from here?

Looking in the rear view mirror is not usually an embraceable investment strategy for new tech......

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm ;

Part of that comedy are the repeated price prediction timelines that keep getting pushed out because they never materialize, right?

Funny stuff!

Yes - let's focus on how many LLCs Mark Regus has or hasn't created. Fascinating stuff.

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT!

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm ;

IMO - won't be much to look at. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that it won't be pretty at all.

Maybe then we'll see your predicted .035? Still waiting......

Yes, yes, the ol' "lying by omission" trick. Positively scandalous.
Right up there with the ol' "lending the company $4M of your own money" trick.

Red flag right there.

That's weird - I can't find the word SCAM anywhere in the final consent from the SEC. I'll keep looking.



It would be really helpful if that timeline could be narrowed down a bit - will it stop trading this month? This quarter? This year? I'd like to know.



I think I'll be waiting to see the results of the announced "pilot run" and whether the sale of the processor(s) is consummated before I sell anything (I mean, I've waited this long - it would be silly for me to sell now!); we should know something by the beginning of May. But thanks for the heads up.

That complaint was settled a while ago - not much left that's newsworthy today.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

That complaint was settled a while ago - not much left that's newsworthy today.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

Probably not as much fuel as they did in the previous three years while they were developing the technology.....



Yes, yes, PTOI is the only company to ever not disclose everything to shareholders....the whole "lying through omission" thingy is really gaining traction.

Of course, of course, and there will be no "national engineering firm" supervising the pilot, or having anything to do with PTOI and its non-functional processors, either.

All just more smoke and mirrors.

That complaint was settled a while ago - not much left that's newsworthy today.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

Of course, Eco Navigation is the only possible buyer of PTOI processors. There are no other business concerns in the world that would consider buying a PTOI processor if it works as advertised, except for Eco Navigation.

Got it.

And with your reply, you illustrate precisely why none of your "metrics" should be taken as gospel when evaluating the potential of PTOI. PTOI is not a NASDAQ company - it is a start up. It is senseless to hold a start up company to all of the "expectations" of a NASDAQ-listed company.

Nobody can credibly argue that there haven't been mis-steps by management, and missed deadlines. The legal entanglements, likewise, have served to hamper progress. The focus now is whether or not there will be processor sales, and whether or not those sales will demonstrate that the technology developed over the past 5 years is marketable. No amount of re-stating past transgressions by the founder or other officers will impact what's happening now.

In less than three months, we will all have answers. It is that simple. Until then, people can speculate all they want - but it will be mostly opinion.

A

Yes - I can see that PTOI is the only company ever that has made announcements that have not materialized. What a scam.



Yes - I can see that PTOI is the only company that ever had development delays that impacted projections. What a scam.



Yes - see answers 1 & 2 above. What a scam.



I think the words not relevant work better than very unfair - but yes, I can see that all companies who miss projections and have development delays will never, ever succeed. What a scam.



Yes - I can see that all companies who make a business plan change will never, ever succeed. What a scam.



Yes - I can see that PTOI has sold every share that they had, far surpassing any other start up company with respect to death spiral financings and reverse splits. What a scam.

That complaint was settled a while ago - not much left that's newsworthy today.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm