If media credits were worthless then any bank or lending institution if they had knowledgeable staff would surely see them as worthless and not lend them the money if that is the case. That being said, how is that one company can claim this( media credits) as an asset and another company acquires the very same ( media credits) and yet it cannot file these as an asset.It just does not make sense.I apologize for being a bit of a newbie to all the inner workings of the stock market, but common sense dictates that there is certainly something not kosher here. A trial will answer many questions and regardless of the outcome P2O will carry on and I believe will be very successful for the investment community and the environment.It would be interesting to see who invested on the basis of the worth of these media credits alone.
Dead wrong -- this is a civil lawsuit so in order to sue for "illgotten gains" they have to prove those "gains" were "illgotten" on the basis of something. Sure, there can be an SEC fine of something (maybe a couple of hundred thousand) but not an entire private placement.
Here's the first random example I found via Google of a "private placement" fraud allegation from the SEC. $2.9 million private placement -- company agreed to give back $242,339 including interest or less than 10% of it:
And if you read the case -- that's REAL fraud. Not a single line accounting error from 3 years ago. The entire private placement was accused of being a represented fraud.
The notion that JBII will have a fine as big as Xerox, which had years of severe earnings accounting fraud, is just laughable.
Air ball. The media credits have to be proven to have caused an economic loss to investors of the .80 PIPE AND were a material reason for the investment decision by a reasonable investor in JBII.
No wonder they're still negotiating a settlement which will likely have zero effect on successful profitable business operations IMO. Read on...
"Companies which issue securities (issuers) seek to raise money to fund new projects or investments or to expand....In this context, "material" means information that would affect a reasonable investor's evaluation of the company's stock."
"The Supreme Court has held that there are six elements that a plaintiff must allege and prove in order to prevail in a Rule 10b-5 action:
[...]
5. the plaintiff suffered an economic loss as a result of the alleged fraud; and
6. the plaintiff can allege and prove "loss causation", which means that the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation or omission caused the plaintiff's economic loss. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005)."
"The test of materiality is whether a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonable investor would consider the misrepresented or omitted fact important in making an investment decision. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, 426 U.S. 438, 439 (1976); Basic Incorporated v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 222, 231-232 (1988). Moreover, materiality cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be judged in the context of the “total mix” of information available to the securities markets..."
"The valuations which Defendants issued were allegedly "hypothetical" and as such "no reasonable investor could or should have relied upon" them. . . A fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making the investment decision. See Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231-32 (1988). . . The SEC must also show a reasonable likelihood the violative conduct will recur unless Defendants are enjoined. SEC V. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 655 (9th Cir. 1980). When determining the likelihood of future violations, a court should consider the degree of scienter involved; the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction..."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
