Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

You make a good point, when viewing the entire complaint, and asking whether "class action status" is appropriate.

And exactly which of the characteristics that you quoted would result in the case not being afforded class action status?

"In federal civil procedure law, which has also been accepted by approximately 35 states (through adoption of state civil procedure rules similar to the federal rules), the class action must have certain definite characteristics:
the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical,
there must be legal or factual claims in common
the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and
the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. These four requirements are often summarized as CANT: commonality, adequacy, numerosity, and typicality. In many cases, the party seeking certification must also show
that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and
that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand."

That's right. None.

The requirements above are set forth in Rule 23(a):

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule23.htm

I agree that parts (1) and (2), above, are satisfied in this case. Part (4) remains a question mark, as the "lead plaintiff" has not yet been selected. The only individual who has stepped up to serve as lead plaintiff, so far as we know, is the named plaintiff in the law suit, who is suing based on her 1,000 share purchase in May 2011.

That, in my opinion, is the primary weakness in this case at present and, assuming she continues as plaintiff, calls into doubt Part (3). Given that the identified misstatements relate primarily to (1) valuation of media credits in 2009 and (2) improper accounting for acquisitions in 2009 (with some related reporting in early 2010), it is highly questionable that the named plaintiff's May 2011 purchase would bring her within the class of people who relied on such inaccuracies. As I understand it (I am not a class action or securities attorney/professional), a variance in factual issues and distinctive time periods within the class period can defeat the typicality requirement in Part (3). In other words, the corrected financials may serve to "cure" the previously misleading (or more harshly, fraudulent) statements that the plaintiff in this case has raised as grounds for the class action. As such, the disclosure of the "curative information" can effectively end the class period at issue. The question would then become, who is lead plaintiff, as the suit cannot proceed without one.

For this reason, it is my best guess that the complaint sought to expand the class period up to the date of the Wells notice disclosure by JBI on July 20, 2011, as the named plaintiff would then fall within the purported class period.

I do think you nailed it in this post, though, which I agree with 100%.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65679150