Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[jaxstraw]

Johnik you are incorrect...and the very passage you cite proves it... .....

It could not be any clearer that it does not affect Bordynuik's testimonial obligations (i.e., speak the truth) or his right to take legal or factual positions in any non-SEC litigation.

Clearly Baldwin's case is a SEC litigation.

If it goes to trial , and Bordynuik is called or makes a deposition, the Staff will be aware if he is denying any allegations ( which track Baldwins) in any testimony.

As far as 'voiding the settlement'. The Commission can not do that on the spot.

The Commission can threaten to invoke the contractual right it bestowed upon itself to petition the Court to vacate the consent judgment.

Those lawyers have nothing of the sort, and my guess is that they will not even attempt to make such contention.

I am presenting a scenario if Baldwin takes this to trial.If these events happen.

They have nothing of the sort because none of these scenarios have come to pass.
You answer as if the events have already happened.

But if they do... are you suggesting that any lawyer in a security litigation that tracks these SEC cases would not use public statements to bolster their argument ?


If Bordynuik has to make a choice of not denying the allegations in another SEC suit that tracks his own ( Baldwins) because he does not want to take his chances of having the Commision petition the court to vacate the consent....those statements can become public.....and any practitioner has the ability to use them their clients benefit. i.e. Derivative Suit