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.
Thank you for your thoughtful, unbiased reply. I agree with your sentiments, which you articulated nicely in your opening paragraph.
Yes, exactly. Very well said.
I have asked for the same.
It appears to be a completely frivolous accusation that lacks any factual support whatsoever.
Good luck getting any meaningful response.
Mr. Irons has always been genuine and professional in my interactions with him. The assertion that he is a "lying sack of crap" is of course unsubstantiated. I have also found that Mr. Irons is good at communicating within regulatory constraints on private disclosures, as one should expect from an investor relations manager.
Substantiation please.
Otherwise I must assume you are fabricating baseless accusations out of thin air, with no support whatsoever.
I call BS, big time.
It would be foolish to attempt to answer insurance coverage questions in the abstract. An examination of the applicable insurance policy (or policies) is needed to determine what is and is not covered. I could ask 20 coverage questions in addition to the 20 coverage questions you raised, but that would be unproductive.
Since your focus is apparently on document 38, look at page 7, clause XI, then turn to document 16, page 2, paragraph 3.
Regardless, I would be very pleased to hear your case for insurance coverage. Thanks, and FWIW: I do not think this case is representative of insurance coverage in other matters.
The Delaware Secretary of State does not adjudicate corporate authority when documents are filed, but thanks for the suggestion. And no, you have no obligation to supply a good faith basis for filing the suit, but given your apparent research into the matter I was hoping you could articulate one.
Perhaps I should ask the five "Does" and five "Roes" named as defendants for the details.
Have a good one yourself.
You are overstating the role of an independent (non-employee) director. Your post:
Winning is fun! Cheers!
Correct in part. In the eyes of the court, a settlement is an agreement to resolve a claim without further litigation. Neither party has "won" or "lost" insofar as the court is concerned. In the eyes of the parties, the extent to which any settlement is a "win" requires consideration of the factors identified in my prior post.
I don't think that the company ever stated that it "prevailed" or "won" any case that it has settled, so I don't know why this is an issue.
That is an excellent report, and a must read for anyone (myself included) that is looking to understand the technical aspects of Plastic2Oil and its development.
Yes, I am glad we have that minor ambiguity behind us. I am not in the least bit surprised to see that amendment approved.
exogyra,
Having viewed the page myself, the description in Commando's post is a copy and paste from the online DEC permit application summary. It is the basic summary entered by the DEC into its database. I am not sure if pending applications are available upon request, but you could contact the DEC in that regard. The online summary obviously does not have all the details.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=822054
Are you making this up out of thin air, or do you have at least some basis to support it?
Not sure about the dialog, but make note of the footnote.
What are you claiming was "theoretically fraudulent" about the science and why? Regarding the SEC's investigation, the following inquiry by the SEC is recorded in the publicly available filings:
"With regard to your P2O business, please disclose how your process breaks plastic down into oil and other various products. Please clarify the nature of your process and catalyst and if you have any proprietary rights with respect to the process or catalyst."
Do you believe that this inquiry was not related to the science of the process? Just curious....
Comments like these are laughable to anyone who knows or is familiar with this judge:
I agree. What really matters for a settlement is that there is a "meeting of the minds," so to speak. The parties obviously agreed on the terms, which the judge approved, and a minor ambiguity in one of the documents mattered only to [fill in the blanks].
Sorry for another "belated" reply (my prior same day reply was belated?). The key distinction here is the difference between a settlement and a judgment after finding. There is no evidence before the court, and therefore no basis to make any finding. So what we have is a settlement, and nothing more, and your links are not to the contrary.
If you can present a reputable link or cite to a document (or preferably law) that states that a "Judge MUST find that a violation of the Misleading and Deceptive Practices (aka fraud) section of the code occurred" in order to approve a settlement, then please do so. Though tough for some to grasp, without evidence before the court, there can be no factual findings. Your link to 15 U.S.C. sec. 78u(d)(3) in no way changes that, as it imposes no requirements for settlement approval.
Don't take my word for it. There are plenty of cases that contain statements such as this (anyone who is citing laws and stating what securities laws require should be able to find them):
The parties can waive a jury, in which case all findings would be by the judge. But yes, the question for settlement approval is a matter of equity.
Sorry Brig. There is no way of knowing what and how much is covered without having a copy of the insurance policy (or policies).
Okay, thanks for the explanation. What you meant by "personally" making an investment was not clear in your prior post. I construed it to mean him making the investment himself, as opposed to someone else investing the money on his behalf. Now I see you use the term to refer to direct as opposed to indirect ownership.
I did not "ignore" the context of your post. It simply wasn't worth the effort to respond to the remainder of it. My point, which you apparently do not "get," is that the litigation costs would have far exceeded the cost to settle, making settlement the obvious choice. Settlement is not an admission of liability, period. The fact that an injunction is agreed upon as part of the settlement does not change that fact.
Sometimes settlement makes sense from a practical standpoint. This case was one of them.
Jax, please allow me to explain. The following quote from the consent agreement is important:
"Nothing in this paragraph affects Defendant's: (i) testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take legal or factual positions in litigation or other legal proceedings in which the Commission is not a party."
Thus, the consent does not compel Bordynuik to admit the allegations during the course of testimony (or admit the allegations at all for that matter). A defendant is obligated to testify truthfully, and the consent in no manner affects that obligation.
It bears noting that the clause requiring the defendant not to make a public statement denying the allegations in the complaint, including the exception quoted above, is not unique to Bordynuik and JBI. It is the stated policy of the SEC to impose this requirement in the consent, as stated in the Federal regulations. You will find neary verbatim language in other consents to settle SEC enforcemelnt actions. By way of example only, refer to the consent signed by Pfizer in civil action 1:12-cv-01303 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
As for your question: