Replies to post #217565 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[BRIG_88]

Here's a FACT. The case settled....like 97% of them do.....i'll predict another near-future-fact......Judge Wolf signs off on it as is.....no admission no fraud....the case is DEAD....just deadin'

[Rawnoc]

LOL!!! Johnik is correct, as usual. It's clear as day from the SEC:

"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"

There is no finding of fraud, and, no, since the court does NOT reach and resolve the merits of the claims or controvery the court clearly does NOT make a finding a fraud.

Period.

[ponzi_implosion]

As I recall the part of the proposed settlement included language to the effect that the 'facts' alleged in the SEC Fraud Lawsuit are true. By signing the settlement, JBI / JB agree that the allegations presented in the lawsuit are in fact true and further agree to never dispute the factual accuracy of the statments enumerated and described in the settlement.

That is not to say that Johnik's statment that the settlement was a business decision, is not at least partially true. Pragmatically speaking, the settlement was the only viable option left for JB / JBI. Calling it a 'business decison' is a fig leaf to cover the obivious implications of admitting to fraud.

[Johnik]

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.

I most certainly never stated that, so the above is not "according to [me]."

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".

Sure it can, by considering issues that are relevant to the court's determination of whether to approve the settlement. Pertinent inquiries might include:

Do the terms of the agreement serve the public interests that the securities laws are designed to protect?
Are the proposed injunctions consistent with the nature of the alleged violations? Do they further the purposes of the securities laws?
Is there any indication or suggestion of bad faith or malfeasance on the part of any party in entering into the agreement?
Is there any indication that consent to the judgment was not freely given?

None of these inquiries requires the judge to examine evidence bearing on the merits because the judge is not addressing the merits of the SEC's claims. This is not to suggest that the judge's review is necessarily confined to the current record, of course, as the judge is free to hold a hearing or request further information from the parties if needed.

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.

No, to the contrary, the court must consider the law when determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. The terms of the settlement must comport with the purposes that the laws are intended to serve. As a practical matter, courts rarely reject settlements, particularly if both parties to the settlement are well-represented. After all, one would expect that the SEC would not agree to settlement terms that are inconsistent with the same laws the SEC is responsible for enforcing.

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.

As I keep explaining, the judge is not ruling on the merits. The court's duty when considering a settlement agreement is fundamentally different that its duty when making findings and entering judgment after trial. The whole purpose of settlement is to resolve the controversy without expending the time and money to pursue protracted litigation and trial. It would make little sense to settle a case if the judge were nonetheless obligated to try the case on the merits in order to approve the settlement.

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."

Yes, and that statement still is nonsense. But I guess you are sticking with it (no surprise).