Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[loanranger]

I am not a lawyer, but from my perspective this could not make less sense:

I asked:
Is the Court simply acting to "approve a settlement" without regard to the wording of the judgment and the law cited therein?

To refute that understanding, you offered the following citation:
"..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...."

Earlier you indicated that:
"There is no evidence before the court, and therefore no basis to make any finding."

If "there is no evidence before the court", the court cannot possibly be in a position to "determine that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and appropriate under the particular facts".
If the court "need not inquire into the precise legal rights of the parties", then indeed the Court is acting to "approve a settlement" without regard to the law cited therein.

A reasonable person could only conclude from your own "facts" as provided above that the answer to this question is "YES" and not "no" or "still no" as you indicated:
"Is the Court simply acting to "approve a settlement" without regard to the wording of the judgment and the law cited therein?"
I submit that the act of signing a Final Judgment in the absence of those considerations would be a meaningless act and would hope that the Court would share that feeling.



The following statement makes even less sense to me:
"In other words, the issue before the judge is whether the settlement terms are equitable considering both the SEC's allegations and the company's response thereto."

We've been told countless times (appropriately enough) that allegations, in the absence of proof, are just allegations. Now we're told that the unproven allegations are to be considered in the Court's decision as to whether the settlement is equitable. Not only that, but the consent to the Final Judgment itself says that "the Defendant withdraws any papers filed in this action to the extent that they deny any allegation in the complaint", which would obviously include the company's response given that it consisted almost entirely of denials to the allegations of the complaint.

So, according to you, the issue before the judge in applying his signature to the Final Judgment is whether the sum of the SEC's unproven allegations and the Defendant's denials of those allegations, which the Defendants have agreed to withdraw, is reflected in the terms of the settlement, which include fines and a director and officer ban.

We began this discussion with your declaration that my following statement was "Nonsense":
"If he signs the proposed judgment it confirms that he finds that fraud occurred."

I fail to understand how the Judge could conclude that the fines and the director and officer ban, which are pursuant to cited securities laws involving Misleading and Deceptive Practices, are reasonable sanctions ("equitable") without CONCLUDING that fraud occurred. Said another way, the fines and director and officers bans could not be seen to be equitable terms of a settlement if no fraud occurred.


"I do not wish to belabor this issue any further."
Suits me fine.


ps. I know that the old saw starts with "If The Facts Are Against You, Argue The Law", but I think it's important that we remember the facts. So here they are again:

The company reflected an asset in their financial statements at a value of $10,000,000 which they acquired for shares having a value of $1,000,000 and which the company itself admitted in a public filing 6 months later was totally worthless.
The company used those financial statements as part of the documentation provided to participants in two funding efforts.....Private Investments in the Public Equities of the company.
Furthermore, it allowed those statements to stand uncorrected for a period of months during which the company's shares traded publicly.