Replies to post #81060 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[umiak]

Correct: (d) Without Cause. On the sixtieth (60th) day following written notice by either Party to the other Party without Cause . . . ."

Thus, assuming Kaplanis was terminated without cause on July 14, his "Employment Term" continued through August 3 when Revma was formed, and Kaplanis remained obligated to comply with his duties set forth in the above paragraphs 1(b) and 1(e).

[BRIG_88]

The Employee shall not during the Employment Term (except as a representative of the Company or with consent in writing of the Board) be directly or indirectly engaged or concerned in any other business activity."

Let's put it in layman's terms....Kaplanis was moonlighting contrary to the best interests of JBII and got CANNED....fired for cause....if this frivolous suit ever sees the inside of a courtroom he isn't going to have a leg to stand on

[Zardiw]

Great Post and Great DD Johnik!...Kaplanis deserved to get fired.......z

[jimmenknee]

Great points you lay out for the legal side Johnik-- and one could argue to some success, but was not looking to judge what was being offered based solely on what little we know/are being led to believe... not my gig

I was responding to the timeline and offering a natural human reaction perspective conceding the legal speculation. I do believe it is silly to expect that a soon-to-be-let-go employee would not attempt to set themselves up to continue to draw a paycheck from somewhere outside of their soon-to-be-terminated employment. We do not know what transpired in an assumed induced, stressed environment after Jul 14/15. Indeed there are a lot of plausible-s including Mr Kaplanis coming to an understanding that perhaps his "severance" package was in jeopardy.

To note: there is a provision in the unsigned agreement where outside work is acceptable/possible, but again not a point to make a definitive conclusion.

I also find it sad that posts are willing to judge one side so easily and yet complain if the other is challenged-- can we not recognize the insincerity of the "whole" discussion under these conditions? I choose to not pre-judge either...

again for me the importance of the litigation is what is revealed outside the legal issues being argued.

But as to your post, very well constructed (as usual)-- points taken :-)