Of course the company wouldn't be suspended "based on a 10Q filing being two months late", but I'm not so sure about the rest of those contentions.
From the SEC's own literature, as you quoted it, "....the SEC suspends trading only when it believes that the public may be making investment decisions based on a lack of information, or false or misleading information."
On 5/15 the CFO, in the FORM 12b-25 NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING for the first quarter 10-Q, checked the "NO" box in response to the following question:
"Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof?"
Two weeks later, on 6/3, both the CEO and the CFO signed the certifications of the 10-K, which said:
"The Company had to shut down its production late in the fourth quarter of 2013 due to severe cold weather that caused damage to condensers and other components of our processors. Management estimates that the repair of the processors will require the expenditure of between $175,000 and $200,000. At June 3, 2014, we lacked the working capital or access to bank credit to make these repairs."
The 10-Q "from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year" said this:
"Currently, as of the filing of this report, we have two operational P2O processors and are in the process of assembling a third, all of which are located in Niagara Falls, NY."
and more specifically this:
Processor #1 – This is our first processor that was built and provided key research and development data. The new layout of Processor #1 has resulted in a lower feedrate than our other processor, however, we have been able to have regular runs, consisting of lower amounts of feedstock and shorter timeframes from this processor, while still generating high quality fuel. The run times and amount of feedstock able to be processed during a cycle is dependent on the types of feedstock put into the processor.
Processor #2 – The second processor operated throughout the first quarter. As previously disclosed, during January 2013, after the successful testing of processing heat transfer fluid through Processor #2, we had residual downtime on the processor caused by certain preventative maintenance and follow-up testing from the heat transfer fluid trial period. Also, as previously disclosed, weather related feedstock issues also contributed to downtime during January and the early part of February. Since then, we have been operating Processor #2 on a regular basis based on our production schedules.
I submit that there would be a "significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year" when the comparison is between last year's two processor combination of "we have been able to have regular runs" and "The second processor operated throughout the first quarter" versus this year's "shut down its production" for the entire quarter. Unless of course someone wants to make the silly argument that the production of inventory for sale isn't a measure of the "results of operations".
So for the time period between 5/15 and 6/4 the public was provided with "false or misleading information".
But perhaps more importantly "the public may be(have been) making investment decisions based on a lack of information" for an extended period prior to the announcement that "the three operational P2O processors have been idle since late December 2013", made in early June 2014.
On January 9th the company filed an 8-K making the following announcement:
"On January 3, 2014, the management of JBI, Inc. (the “Company”) announced to the employees of its production facility in Niagara Falls, New York its plan to reduce its workforce by twelve employees (representing approximately one-third of its workforce) in an effort to further reduce operating expenses and extend its cash position. The reduction plan was effective immediately and only included non-core function employees who were not primarily engaged in fuel production or processor sales. This reduction is part of the Company’s previously disclosed plans to continue to aggressively monitor and reduce operating costs. The Company expects to reduce overall weekly payroll expense by approximately $17,500 through these measures, as well as through temporary pay reductions of select key employees. The Company does not expect it will incur any material charges as a result of this reduction."
Obviously the company would have known on January 9th that "the three operational P2O processors have been idle since late December 2013", yet they chose to withhold that information for five months when they had the perfect opportunity to reveal it in that January 9th filing. If they provided that information to the public at some point between that filing and June 4, 2014, then I missed it.
(Note that ironically they held on to employees who were "primarily engaged in fuel production"...what they used them for for the next five months is an open question.)
Is a lack of information in a prior period a justification for a current suspension? How about the misleading information in the Lateness Notification? Maybe not, but it would certainly give the SEC a reason to assure itself that such activities aren't continuing. And the shareholders who bought at prices of up to 31¢ a share during the lack of information period only to see it drop to 9¢ on the day the 10-K was filed (highest volume day since January of 2012, btw) would have yet another cause of action if the lazy-assed securities attorneys were paying attention and thought it could make THEM a buck.
"There isn't going to be anything in the financials of the 10Q of monumental change."
How can you possibly know that?
ps. In your previous post you said:
"While I realize the rules don't technically allow it, it's reasonable to expect the 10Q will take 45 days from when the 10K was filed as most SEC reporting companies on the OTC take 45 days to do the 10Q"
While not accepting the gist of your "new CFO" argument, I need to point out that I'm pretty sure that the "45 days from when the 10K was filed" mark was hit yesterday. I don't think we have to wait until the "second week of August", as you suggest, for it to smell.....it has an aroma to it already.
"I ated the purple berries"
