As far as Performance Packaging goes:
While Hawkins claims PAC has a 51% interest in Performance Packaging, he reluctantly admitted to the SEC in August 2009 that by contract, Performance Packaging has to reach a certain level of revenue before it must make any monetary distribution to Petro. Hawkins was evasive regarding whether the distribution benchmark had been reached, although he clarified, “I think it will.” When the SEC asked whether Petro has had any actual revenue from any of its other businesses since Petro’s initial offering, other than prospects, he stated “No.” Hawkins failed to disclose this benchmark to the attorney at the March 2010 meeting.
Sounds like as of March 2010 Petro America Corp has received no revenue from Performance Packaging Group. And because Owen was unclear what the benchmark is that has to be reached for Petro America Corp to receive revenue from Performance Packaging it is unclear if Petro America Corp will be receiving any revenue from Performance Packaging Group for 2010.
I would love to know the benchmark and I hope some day it comes out in an official report. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was intentionally made to be a very big number to insure that Performance Packaging would never have to give up any of it's revenue to Petro America Corp. The deal may have only been structured so that Owen could claim Performance Packaging as an asset so he'd have something real to share with shareholders.
As far as Owen or anybody else saying that Performance Packaging Group employees are Petro America Corp employees. I think that is a very false statement too. It's just Owen trying to stretch the truth to make Petro America Corp sound like it is accomplishing something. In this case Owen used it to say that Petro America Corp has created over 100 jobs.
AI
