Replies to post #246896 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[BigBake1]

Actually that is not correct, the SEC recently changed policies concerning no longer settling for Neither Admitting or Denying the charges. They will now go for Guilt in these cases, so to try to compare either case is complete garbage as the SEC policy has in fact changed concerning findings. The whole point of settlement was to avoid the lengthy process and fees, the SEC doesn’t have unlimited funds at their disposal, nor do they have unlimited resources to task to each case. So the same argument that is being used that certain clients do not have “deep pockets” can be said about the SEC, as they do not have “deep pockets” either.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-18/business/40050387_1_defendants-citigroup-misconduct

Point being the SEC had a policy to not go for guilt, but instead went with a policy that ensured a higher rate of winning cases by not admitting guilt yet still collecting fines and handing out bans.

It is clear the SEC didnt have the evidence needed to win this particular case, unlike JB and JBII, which clearly there was plenty of evidence but the policy at that time was to achieve a settlement. The difference being that JB and JBII still had the opportunity to go to court and they chose instead to settle without admission or denial because that was the SEC policy at that time.

[steelyeye]

Steady T's argument is accurate:

Just as in the Cuban case, the SEC presents one side of the case in the filings. JBI filed a response that countered the SEC allegations. Unlike Cuban, JBI didn't have the deep pockets it takes to go to court where BOTH sides are considered.

A business decision was made to settle.

New Money's argument (about the shit-canned chief investigating officer) got it right as well:

Now the lowdown underhanded lawyer that got shit canned for the failed attempt to destroy the company for monitary gain?

She had to find another, lower paying job and left the state.

[CHUNKY44]

A business decision was made to settle.

I completely agree, the decision to settle was made when JB weighed his options and decided to grossly overvalue the company's assets.

After all, he is a genius, right? He had to know his decision came with consequences. Apparently those consequences were judged to be the more acceptable alternative at that time.

[loanranger]

The facts aren't going to change with the passage of time.

JBI stated in their financial statements that they had acquired an asset for $1 million in common stock and reflected that asset in their financial statements as having a value of $10 million. They then presented that valuation as if it were a fact in documents that were used in the selling of their common stock. They later admitted that the asset had no value to the company.

Those are the facts that would have resulted in their losing the case had it been brought to trial. Those established facts don't require an admission for them to be the truth....they appear in the public record as reported by the company itself.

"A business decision was made to settle."
There's no doubt about that...and it was the right decision for both parties.


The only thing that the Cuban case had in common with the JBI case is that both cases were brought by the SEC.

[Zorax]

"A settlement where the language is quite clear about neither admitting or denying the charges."

Which is bullshit in itself, which the SEC is this moment attempting to change precisely that. If the SEC has it's way, any company or officer proven guilty WILL have to admit guilt. Not get a ridiculous silly fine and walk away. Unfortunately, bordy admitted guilt in reality by accepting the 5 year ban and a few hundred thousand in fines. Quite different from cuban.