Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

Point taken, and understood, but a few counter-points should be made.

I do believe it is silly to expect that a soon-to-be-let-go employee would not attempt to set themselves up to continue to draw a paycheck from somewhere outside of their soon-to-be-terminated employment.

Sure, but note that the employment contract afforded Kaplanis post-employment benefits in the event of termination without cause, including continued payment of his salary and medical coverage for 2 months after termination. Also note that we are dealing with two sophisticated parties that negotiated contract terms.

I also find it sad that posts are willing to judge one side so easily and yet complain if the other is challenged-- can we not recognize the insincerity of the "whole" discussion under these conditions? I choose to not pre-judge either...

With all due respect jimmenknee, I at least have seen far more posts drawing unfavorable inferences from the so-called "bombshell" emails from the CEO than I have any criticism about possible misgivings of Kaplanis. Haven't you drawn some of those negative inferences yourself? (hint: "stock promotion" comments)

If you sincerely wish not to pre-judge, then that is admirable. I will agree that we are not in the position to determine precisely what transpired when we have very limited documentation before us, presented by adversaries to a lawsuit that is still in its infancy.

again for me the importance of the litigation is what is revealed outside the legal issues being argued.

Okay, I understand what you are saying, but there is a Catch-22 element to this endeavor. The information revealed during this litigation will be channeled specifically to the legal issues being argued. If dissected from those legal issues, then you are left with a glimpse of insight into a matter that lies outside of the proceedings. Simply put, you can't get meaningful insight into a topic that is unrelated to the issues being argued because you will be unable to get the full picture.

As for the comment about the contract being "unsigned," I really think this is a non-issue. We can't assume that the contract was never signed just because an electronic copy of the document downloaded to Pacer did not display a signature. Note that Kaplanis, in his complaint, asserts that the parties entered into an employment agreement referenced as Exhibit A (but failed to include a copy of said Exhibit A). Note as well that Kaplanis has not contested the validity of the employment contract submitted to the court by JBI. Thus, at least to date, there is no disagreement that the contract on file in the court is the one embodying the parties' agreement.

BTW: The faces you add to your posts (both happy and sad) always give me a good chuckle. Thanks for keeping the mood light.