A good, but complicated, point.
The May agreement that was entered into between JB and JBI started with a Recitals section. Here's what it said:
A. Employee is currently the CEO of Company
B. Company and Employee agree that it is in the best interests of Company and Employee, that Employee resign as CEO of Company and enter into this new Employment Agreement to be employed as Chief of Technology of Company.
In other words, the company felt obligated to file the Employment Agreement of the Chief of Technology.
One of the Items covered in that same 8-K was:
Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers; Compensatory Arrangement of Certain Officers.
In connection with the consummation of the private placement transaction described in Item 1.01 of this report, the Company effected certain changes to its management as described below.
John Bordynuik
Effective May 15, 2012, Mr. John Bordynuik resigned from his positions as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President and from the Company’s board of directors. He also resigned as an officer and director of each of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries. Effective upon his resignation, Mr. Bordynuik assumed the newly-created position of Chief of Technology, a non-executive.
Which leaves us with the question:
If the company felt that an 8-K was required to file the Employment Agreement of the Chief of Technology, a "non-executive", at that point, then why should we not expect that they would file an Employment Agreement with the Chief of Technology if such an agreement was made now?
"Since John Bordynuik is no longer an officer of the company, no 8k would need to be filed if his contract was changed."
Why did they feel a need to file his contract in May?