Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

Jax, please allow me to explain. The following quote from the consent agreement is important:

"Nothing in this paragraph affects Defendant's: (i) testimonial obligations; or (ii) right to take legal or factual positions in litigation or other legal proceedings in which the Commission is not a party."

Thus, the consent does not compel Bordynuik to admit the allegations during the course of testimony (or admit the allegations at all for that matter). A defendant is obligated to testify truthfully, and the consent in no manner affects that obligation.

It bears noting that the clause requiring the defendant not to make a public statement denying the allegations in the complaint, including the exception quoted above, is not unique to Bordynuik and JBI. It is the stated policy of the SEC to impose this requirement in the consent, as stated in the Federal regulations. You will find neary verbatim language in other consents to settle SEC enforcemelnt actions. By way of example only, refer to the consent signed by Pfizer in civil action 1:12-cv-01303 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

As for your question:

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 ?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. If Bordynuik were to make a public statement admitting to certain allegations, then those public statements could certainly be used in other litigation. Signing a consent in settlement whereby he neither admits nor denies the allegations is not a "public statement" that could be used in other litigation.