Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

Sorry for another "belated" reply (my prior same day reply was belated?). The key distinction here is the difference between a settlement and a judgment after finding. There is no evidence before the court, and therefore no basis to make any finding. So what we have is a settlement, and nothing more, and your links are not to the contrary.

If you can present a reputable link or cite to a document (or preferably law) that states that a "Judge MUST find that a violation of the Misleading and Deceptive Practices (aka fraud) section of the code occurred" in order to approve a settlement, then please do so. Though tough for some to grasp, without evidence before the court, there can be no factual findings. Your link to 15 U.S.C. sec. 78u(d)(3) in no way changes that, as it imposes no requirements for settlement approval.

Don't take my word for it. There are plenty of cases that contain statements such as this (anyone who is citing laws and stating what securities laws require should be able to find them):

The standard for judicial review and approval of proposed consent judgments in [Securities and Exchange] Commission enforcement actions is well-established. Because actions brought by the Commission seek to enforce the federal securities laws, they should serve "the public interest." SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir.1984), see also United States v. Trucking Emp., Inc., 561 F.2d 313, 317 (D.C.Cir.1977) ("prior to approving a consent decree a court must satisfy itself of the settlement's overall fairness to beneficiaries and consistency with the public interest") (citations and internal quotations omitted). To ensure that the public interest is served, the court "need not inquire into the precise legal rights of the parties nor reach and resolve the merits of the claims or controversy, but need only determine that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and appropriate under the particular facts and that there has been a valid consent by the parties." Citizens for a Better Env't v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1126 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citations omitted).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=771+f.+supp.+2d+304&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=16662531211797483061&scilh=0

You should further realize that the agreement in settlement "not to deny" (though notably also not admitted) is required by federal regulation as a condition to settlement in these cases. It is not unique to JBI, nor could it be. There are many major corporations who have entered into these agreements previously (Pfizer is one that I cited, but there are MANY others).

Settlement is a business decision, and one that made sense IMO.